Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Doncaster Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Romford Urban District Council Bill [Lords] (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURANCE.

Mr. TINKER: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons there are at present who come within the provisions of the unemployment insurance scheme; and what the number would be if all wage-earners receiving less than £250 a year were included?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): It is estimated that at 1st July, 1930, the latest date for which figures are available, there were approximately 12,138,000 persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain. Precise figures are not available with regard to the total number of persons in Great Britain receiving wages or salaries of less than £250 a year, but on such information as is available it may be estimated that if all such workers were included, the number insured would be approximately 17,000,000. This figure would include employed persons of both sexes under 16 and over 65 years of age who are now outside the scheme.

Mr. TINKER: Is any scheme under consideration to make unemployment insurance more comprehensive so as to include all salaried workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: That has been under the consideration of the Royal Commission.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Do the figures include such excepted workers as railway workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: It includes all salaried persons so far as we are aware.

Mr. McSHANE: Is "wage-earner" distinct from "salary-earner"?

Miss BONDFIELD: The figures include any person receiving wages or salaries, as far as we are able to tell.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the approximate number of persons in each of the classes of anomalies mentioned in the interim report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that the data available do not enable me to give the number of individuals that would be concerned.

Miss LEE: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to deal with the case of workers who, at 65 years of age, cease to be eligible for unemployment insurance and who, if their wives are not yet 65 years, have their income reduced from 24s. to 10s.?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor) on 11th June, of which I am sending her a copy.

Miss LEE: Can the right hon. Lady tell us when we can get the further information such as was given to the hon. Member, as some of us are very anxious to have it?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the answer I have given.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the Minister consider that Unemployment benefit can be regarded as an income for workers under 65 years of age?

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: Was it not Conservative legislation that robbed these people of their unemployment benefits?

FOREIGN MUSICIANS (PERMITS).

Colonel BROADBENT: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has
been called to the refusal of the Governments of the United States of America and France to allow a British band to perform in their respective countries; and if she will refuse permits for bands from the United States of America and France to perform in the United Kingdom in view of the number of unemployed musicians in this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: The entry of dance-bands for employment in this country is strictly regulated, and the restrictions imposed by the French Government are, I believe, similar to those in force here. The restrictions in the United States are not due, so far as I am aware, to Government action.

Colonel BROADBENT: Is the right hon. Lady aware that a large number of foreign musicians are performing in this country, and will she undertake to give the same protection to British musicians as the musicians of France and the United States receive from their Governments?

Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. and gallant Member is mistaken in saying that there is a large number in this country. I can assure him that the greatest possible care is taken in granting permits.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: When the right hon. Lady says that it is not due to Government action that a musician is not permitted to enter the United States, will she say in what way prohibition is effected?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is effected by the organised workers of the United States.

Mr. DAY: When permission is granted to musicians coming into this country, is it not granted only to specialists?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, there must be some very special reason.

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: Does not the right hon. Lady consider this chivvying of musicians rather ridiculous?

WORK SCHEMES.

Mr. MARCUS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour if there are any relief schemes from the Dundee area at present under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee; and, if so, what is the nature of the schemes, as well as the
cost and the number of persons estimated to secure employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Unemployment Grants Committee have at present under consideration an application from the Dundee Harbour Trust for grant from Exchequer Funds in aid of the cost of the provision of a single screw steam tug, estimated to cost £16,000, equivalent to 600 man months of employment.

Mr. MARCUS: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in Forfarshire who are engaged in work in connection with State-aided schemes in that area; and whether any outside labour is being employed?

Miss BONDFIELD: The latest returns show 546 persons as directly employed on 29th May in connection with State-aided schemes in Forfarshire. No transferred labour is employed on these schemes.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of persons at present employed on schemes of work paid for, or approved, and subsidised by the Government, distinguishing the numbers of those employed on schemes financed out of the Road Fund and those paid for otherwise?

Miss BONDFIELD: As stated in the reply on the 29th June to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), the number of persons estimated to be employed directly and indirectly at 29th May on State-aided schemes was 245,000. Of this number some 84,000 can be attributed to schemes financed out of the Road Fund and approximately 161,000 to other schemes.

BENEFIT.

Mr. MARCUS: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of claims for unemployment benefit made and the number disallowed since 1st May, 1930, by the court of referees in Dundee?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the period 13th May, 1930, to 8th June, 1931, 145,633 claims to benefit were made at the Employment Exchanges from which claims to benefit are referred to the Dundee court of referees. During the same period the total number of claims considered by the court of referees was 5,069, of which 3,896 were disallowed. These figures relate to claims and not to separate individuals.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour what proportion of the persons now in receipt of unemployment insurance or transitional benefit have been in continuous receipt of benefit for three

Following is the statement:


The latest available figures were obtained from a sample of 1 in 200 of claimants aged 18 to 64 on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain at 2nd February, 1931, and the following Table shows the percentages in the sample who at that date had been continuously unemployed for various periods. It is possible that during a small proportion of the periods stated unemployment benefit was not paid.


Days of continuous unemployment.
Men.
Women.
Total.


On standard benefit.
On transitional benefit.
Total.
On standard benefit.
On transitional benefit.
Total.
On standard benefit.
On transitional benefit.
Total.



Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Per cent.
Percent.
Per cent.


0–72
69.2
27.9
61.8
63.9
29.7
58.7
67.9
28.3
61.1


73–168
20.1
22.0
20.5
22.5
24.6
22.8
20.7
22.6
21.0


169–311
9.0
29.9
12.7
11.4
24.7
13.5
9.6
28.8
12.9


12 months or more.
1.7
20.2
5.0
2.2
21.0
5.0
1.8
20.3
5.0


Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of the Courts of Referees who sit at Dumbarton and Clydebank Employment Exchanges, and the amounts of fees drawn from 1st June, 1930, to 1st June, 1931?

Mr. LAWTHER: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of Courts of Referees in the county of Durham, and the amounts paid for their services from January to December, 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

Mr. McGOVERN: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the names of the chairmen of Courts of Referees in all Employment Exchanges in Glasgow, and the amounts of money drawn at each Employment Exchange from 1st June, 1930, to 1st June, 1931, by each person as chairman?

Miss BONDFIELD: These questions ask for details of the sums paid to chairmen of Courts of Referees. I have previously replied to similar questions in one or two cases, but these further questions involve a good deal more detail

months, six months, and for longer periods than six months?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

and consequent labour in extracting the figures and might obviously be followed by many others. I am inclined to think that if such information is to be given it should be given for the whole country in the form of a White Paper, and if there is any general desire for this I will consider it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not the right hon. Lady aware of the fact that she gave the amounts and figures for Glasgow for Parkhead and for Bridgeton Employment Exchanges? I do not see why there should be any more difficulty in giving the same information now asked for in regard to Dumbarton.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a reply to the right hon. Lady's answer. If the hon. Member wants to ask a question he can do so, but he must not make a statement.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Lady aware that she gave these figures for Bridgeton and Parkhead?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have said that I have previously replied to similar questions in one or two cases, and if we are
going to have a lot of questions all along the line, I should prefer, if it is really desired, to give this information collectively.

Mr. LAWTHER: When the right hon. Lady proposes to give the name of these chairmen of courts of referees and the amounts they receive, will she also consider the question of reducing the amount that is paid?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise out of the answer.

Mr. McGOVERN: I should like to ask a definite question as to whether the right hon. Lady means that she is going to give the information in a White Paper?

Miss BONDFIELD: I have said that I will give it, if there is a general desire.

Mr. McGOVERN: I have asked a question with regard to Glasgow, and I desire that information for a certain purpose; I want to know if it is the intention of the right hon. Lady to give that information? She is evading the question.

Miss BONDFIELD: I must ask the hon. Member to wait and see.

Miss LEE: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of women members of courts of referees in the United Kingdom and Scotland, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of women members of courts of referees panels in Great Britain is 3,896, of whom 499 are in Scotland.

DOMESTIC SERVICE (SEASIDE BOARDING HOUSES).

Mr. McSHANE: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in all situations in boarding houses at the seaside dealt with by her officers, they make any inquiry from the prospective employer as to wages and hours?

Miss BONDFIELD: Employers are asked to give as full details as possible of the conditions of employment offered. Wages are always stated, but as my hon. Friend knows, the hours vary according to the circumstances of each establishment at different periods of the season. The Department make every effort to
obtain particulars, and, in my opinion, it is most important that information as to hours should be given, when the vacancy is notified to the Exchange.

Mr. McSHANE: Would it not be simpler if a suitable form were sent out from the Employment Exchange on which there was a space for a statement as to wages and hours?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am considering what improvements can be made.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Lady also consider asking for particulars of the living and sleeping accommodation? In some cases they sleep three and four in a room.

ASSISTED WORKS (BRITISH MATERIALS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour the conditions laid down by her in 1929 as to grants given to local authorities because of unemployment in regard to material being of United Kingdom manufacture and, as far as practicable, of United Kingdom origin; and whether she is satisfied that these conditions are being strictly adhered to by local authorities?

Miss BONDFIELD: The conditions under which grants to local authorities are recommended by the Unemployment Grants Committee have, since December, 1929, contained the following paragraph relating to the use of materials for grant-aided schemes:
All materials which are required for assisted works shall, so far as practicable, be of United Kingdom origin and all manufactured articles shall be of United Kingdom manufacture, subject however to such exceptions as the Committee may find to be necessary or desirable in any particular case, having regard to all the circumstances, including the comparative price of British and foreign articles.
There is no reason to suppose that local authorities are not adhering strictly to this condition.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are the Ministry of Labour keeping a very strict watch on the local authorities in regard to these matters?

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand the Unemployment Grants Committee are.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 63.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether
he has any estimate of the number of agricultural workers at present unemployed in England and Wales?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I regret that no statistics are available on which I could make such an estimate as to present unemployment, although the reports we received from our county staffs indicated that, particularly in some arable areas, there was a considerable volume of unemployment during the past winter.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does this same report show that there is a great reduction during the summer?

Dr. ADDISON: No. So far as our information goes, employment during the summer appears to be about normal.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Docs it not show that the demand of over 200 of my hon. Friends that this question should be grappled with now is one of which notice should be taken?

Major BRAITHWAITE: Will the Government take some steps to have a proper and accurate record kept of this class of employment?

Dr. ADDISON: We do obtain such records as we have power to obtain.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAGES.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 7
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the rough percentage estimate, as at June, 1931, of the average increase of full-time weekly wages since July, 1914, for work-people of corresponding grades at the two dates;
(2) the rough percentage estimate, as at June, 1931, of the average increase of hourly rates of wages since July, 1914, for workpeople of corresponding grades at the two dates;
(3) the estimated average increase or decrease in real wages, by adjustment of wages to cost of living, as at June, 1931, as compared with July, 1914, for weekly full-time wages, and similarly for hourly rates of wages, for workpeople of corresponding grades at the two dates?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the answer is necessarily somewhat long, I propose to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Lady to give one figure for each question?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is very difficult to do that.

Mr. SAMUEL: May I press my question, as I think it ought to be ventilated in the House?

Miss BONDFIELD: Then, with permission, I will read the whole reply:
The information in my possession is insufficient to provide a bask for precise calculations, but it is estimated, from such particulars as are available, that for workpeople of corresponding grades weekly full-time rates of wages are about 70 per cent. and hourly rates of wages are about 90 to 95 per cent., on average, above the level of July, 1914. At 1st June, 1931, the average level of working-class cost of living, as indicated by the statistics compiled by the Ministry of Labour, was approximately 45 per cent. above that of July, 1914. On this basis, the average increase in "real" rates of wages would appear to have been about 17 per cent., in the case of weekly full-time rates of wages, and between 30 and 35 per cent., in the case of hourly rates of wages. These figures take no account of changes in average earnings resulting from increased unemployment and short-time working, or from changes in the proportions of workers paid at time and piece rates of wages.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Lady allow that to be published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette?

Miss BONDFIELD: These figures are taken from the Labour Gazette.

Mr. DAY: Has the basis upon which the figures are computed in any way been revised during the previous two years?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is the same basis.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the right hon. Lady any facts regarding the greater producing capacity between 1914 and the present time?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FAIR WAGES RESOLUTION.

Mr. HICKS: 30.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she has considered the representations made to her Department
concerning evasions of the principle of the Fail Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, the difficulty of securing the enforcement of the principle, and the general inapplicability of the terms of the Resolution to the developments of modern industry; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of proposing a new Fair Wages Resolution for acceptance by the House, the terms of which shall be more applicable to the customs and practices of modern industry?

Miss BONDFIELD: This matter is receiving careful examination by the various Departments concerned.

Mr. HICKS: May I ask when she will be able to answer?

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope before very long.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (DEPORTATION).

Sir K. WOOD: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of aliens of Russian nationality who have been recommended for deportation to Russia; and how many have been deported to Russia since June, 1929?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Since June, 1929, 61 persons described as Russians have been recommended for deportation. In four cases I decided, in view of all the circumstances, not to order deportation, nine are still serving their sentences, one is dead, one has been deported to the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, two have been deported to Poland to which country they belong, one has been extradited, and six have left the United Kingdom after orders requiring them to leave had been made against them. In the remaining 37 cases, investigation failed to establish Soviet Russian or any alien nationality.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it not rather an extraordinary thing that out of all this very large number of orders made by judges and magistrates only one person has been taken back to his spiritual home?

Mr. CLYNES: The circumstances may be extraordinary, but what the question asked for was statistics, and I have given them.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: How many of them are White Russians?

Mr. CLYNES: I have not the slightest idea.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say of what nationality these people are, and how they got into this country at all if they had no nationality?

Mr. CLYNES: I have given in the, reply all the information that is obtainable.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTION, MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.

Mr. MESSER: 23.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the principal witness in the trial of Mr. George Smellie, who was sentenced at the Middlesex Sessions in 1919, has sworn an affidavit contradicting the evidence she gave at the trial; and if he will in quire into the case with the view to the granting of a free pardon?

Mr. CLYNES: As I have already informed my hon. Friend, a copy of the affidavit to which he refers has been considered, and I have found no grounds for any action.

Mr. MESSER: May I ask what evidence is required to move the Home Office to have an inquiry into this case?

Mr. CLYNES: If there be any evidence other than that in the affidavit referred to, I should be glad to receive it and to consider it, but it does not follow that if I receive evidence I should necessarily be moved.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDECENT POSTCARDS.

Mr. DAY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many shops in the seaside resorts are at present exposing for sale indecent postcards; and will he issue a general circular to provincial police authorities to the effect that the existing Law should be strictly enforced?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The police are well aware of their powers and duties in this matter, and there is no need for the issue of a circular. If my hon. Friend will send me any in-
formation in his possession, I will see that it is forwarded to the proper authorities.

Mr. DAY: If I send these four postcards which I purchased to the right hon. Gentleman, will he take notice of them?

Mr. CLYNES: I will consider whether I ought to send them to the proper authority.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the hon. Gentleman allowed to have indecent postcards in his possession?

Oral Answers to Questions — PHARMACY AND POISONS BILL.

Mr. BROMLEY: 25.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the representations made to him by the pharmaceutical organisations on the subject of the Pharmacy and Poisons Bill; and whether he proposes to take any steps to meet the objections raised by these organisations?

Mr. CLYNES: As there has been a good deal of misunderstanding about the scope and objects of the Poisons and Pharmacy Bill, I crave the indulgence of the House for a somewhat long statement. This Bill is based upon the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which was appointed by the previous administration and reported in 1930. The committee which, apart from its pharmaceutical members, was entirely independent of any of the commercial interests affected, found that the existing position relating to poisons was far from satisfactory, and the object of the present Bill is to provide for a wider and much more effective regulation of poisons than exists at present. I understand that the Pharmaceutical Associations take exception to the Bill on two main grounds. In the first place, they demand that all doctors' prescriptions, whether they contain poisons or not, shall be dispensed by registered pharmacists only. This proposal does not, however, come within the scope of the Bill. Moreover, it has never been investigated and even if it were assumed that there was a prima facie case for considering that the demand is in the public interest, the Government could not ask Parliament to adopt such a proposal except after adequate inquiry, and after the interests who would be
affected by the prohibition had had an opportunity of stating their case.
Secondly, the pharmacists demand that the increased facilities which the Bill proposes for the supply to farmers of agricultural poisons shall be limited to firms carrying on a bona fide business in the supply of agricultural requisites. I am advised, by the Ministry of Agriculture and by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland that this limitation would not make adequate provision for legitimate needs in the more rural districts. The Government, however, have decided to propose an amendment to the Bill, which will have the effect of requiring the Poisons Board and the Secretary of State, in considering the allocation of poisons as between Part I and Part II, to have regard to the desirability of restricting the contents of Part II (which will contain the list of poisons which may be sold by persons other than pharmaceutical chemists) so far as is consistent with the provision of adequate facilities for the public to obtain supplies of non-medical substances which are in common use.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Was not the reason for the formation of this Commission the desire of the public to restrict the sale of poisons, and has not the result of the recommendation been to increase enormously and to spread the sale of poisons by unauthorised and incompetent persons?

Mr. CLYNES: No, I think the design is to effect a useful and necessary regulation, and I do not admit the argument implied in the hon. Member's question.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with this Bill at an early date, or is he awaiting the observations of the particular associations concerned?

Mr. CLYNES: We are wishful to get ahead with the Bill and to pass it into law, with the Amendments to which I have referred.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: Have the pharmacists been consulted with reference to the proposed Amendments?

Mr. CLYNES: It is because of the activities of the pharmacists that this reply has become necessary.

Mr. WILLIAM BENNETT: Is this the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. CLYNES: I can assure my hon. Friend that this information has been asked for.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

DISARMAMENT (SCHOOLS, BOOKLET).

Mr. McSHANE: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, in view of the approaching Disarmament Conference, he will consider issuing, for use in schools, a suitable booklet on this subject?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): Instruction is already given in schools in the work of the League of Nations, but I do not think it would be advisable to issue a booklet dealing with one particular aspect of its work such as disarmament.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most important aspect of the League of Nations' work, and could not the opportunity be taken of the present Disarmament Conference to use the schools as a great instrument for educational propaganda? It is not necessarily pacifist.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think it would be very dangerous to use the schools for propaganda. It is quite contrary to our whole educational system to take one event and issue a whole series of syllabuses and text-books upon it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Cannot we have a balance in this matter? Instead of teaching the children all about 1066, teach them about how to avoid battles.

MENTALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN.

Mrs. MANNING: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of special schools for mentally defective children which have been opened during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The numbers of special schools for mentally defective children open during the years in question were five in 1926, four in 1927, none in 1928, four in 1929 and one in 1930.

Mrs. MANNING: Having regard to the fact that there are 105,000 mentally-
defective children in this country, and only 16,000 of them are in schools for mentally-defective children, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that local authorities are making?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I realise the difficulties in which the local authorities find themselves.

WOOD COMMITTEE REPORT.

Mrs. MANNING: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can yet announce the intentions of the Board with regard to taking action upon the report of the Wood Committee?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The more important recommendations of the committee involve legislation and are closely connected with the proposal for raising the school-leaving age; and it is not practicable to give any useful decision on them at the present time.

Mrs. MANNING: Will the President of the Board of Education tell me whether there is any connection between the reply which he gave to the preceding question and this one?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I think so.

Mrs. MANNING: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Department realise that these mentally-defective children are a burden on the elementary schools, and will be a future burden upon the community unless the right hon. Gentleman takes some steps to deal with them?

PLAYING FIELD, BASINGSTOKE.

Mrs. MANNING: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the action of Basingstoke Town Council in taking a playing field which has been set aside for children for 40 years for the erection of a car park; whether he is aware that the ground is opposite the main entrance of a large mixed school, and that 350 elementary school boys use the ground for drill and organised games; and whether, in view of the danger which will be occasioned by the traffic, he is prepared to take some action in the matter?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have not received any representations in regard to the proposal of the Basingstoke Town Council to use a piece of land facing the Fair-fields School for a car park, but I have
seen an account of it in the Press. I understand that the piece of land in question could only be appropriated for use as a car park with the consent of the Minister of Health, but that no application for his consent has been received.

ASSISTANTS, SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. EDE: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education on what principle assistants appointed under Rules 56 are assigned or refused to the secondary schools in receipt of grant which make application for their services?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In the great majority of cases in which applications have been received from grant-earning schools for the appointment of French or German assistants for the coming year, it has been possible to grant the application. No rules are laid down for deciding in what cases applications shall be approved, but all the relevant circumstances are taken into account.

FRENCH AND GERMAN ASSISTANTS.

Mr. EDE: 32 and 33.
asked the President of the Board of Education (1) how many French assistants, giving men and women separately, were employed under Rules 56 of the Board of Education in the years 1928–29, 1929–30, and 1930–31; and the corresponding numbers it is proposed to employ in 1931–32;
(2) how many German assistants, giving men and women separately, were employed under Rules 56 of the Board of Education in the years 1928–29, 1929–30, and 1930–31; and the corresponding numbers it is proposed to employ in 1931–32?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: As the answers involve a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The figures are as follow:


Year.
French Assistants.
German Assistants.


Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.


1928–29
20
42
4
3


1929–30
26
46
4
5


1930–31
27
44
10
10


1931–32 (proposed).
34
65
11
7

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DIRECT LABOUR.

Mr. DAY: 34.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities in England and Wales who are, at present, erecting houses by direct labour; and the number of houses which have been altogether erected by direct labour during the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Greenwood): At the latest available date, 118 local authorities were erecting houses by direct labour, and during the 12 months ended 31st March last, 5,248 houses were erected by this means.

OVERCROWDING, LEYTON.

Mr. BROCKWAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the medical officer of health for Leyton states in his report for 1930 that 1,237 cases of overcrowding were found in the borough and that overcrowding is now more acute than at the time of the housing shortage in 1921; and whether, in view of the fact that the land in the borough is built on practically to a maxi mum and its citizens, being outside the London County Council area, are not able to secure houses on the London County Council estates, he is prepared, as a part of a national scheme, to facilitate the building of housing estates open to all persons who are in need of accommodation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the conditions in this borough to which my hon. Friend refers. The question of the preparation of an adequate programme under Section 25 of the Housing Act, 1930, has been the subject of discussion and correspondence with the borough council, and the attention of the council has been called to Section 48 of that Act which provides facilities for co-operation between the London County Council and the councils of districts near London, in the provision of houses. I understand that the council have several new schemes for the erection of houses under consideration and that specific proposals will shortly be submitted.

MATERIALS (IMPERIAL PREFERENCE).

Commander BELLAIRS: 38.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities are acting in
conformity with Circular No. 569 of 24th March, 1925, which recommends that when there is no alternative to purchasing material from abroad the local authorities should keep in mind preference for goods and materials of Imperial origin; and whether this has been or is being done in connection with timber and joinery used in housing schemes?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no reason to believe that local authorities generally are not acting in conformity with the advice which has been given to them on this subject.

Commander BELLAIRS: How does the Minister of Health account for the fact that 600,000 Russian doors are being imported this year into this country, and could not the material be ordered from the Empire or from this country?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no knowledge that those doors are being used on publicly assisted houses.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: In view of the frequent changes in the personnel of local authorities, would the right hon. Gentleman consider re-issuing this circular as a reminder?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is constantly being brought before the notice of local authorities, but to require them to buy British or Empire doors would necessitate legislation.

SLUM CLEARANCE, WESTMINSTER (VERMIN).

Sir MARTIN CONWAY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the recent destruction of some slum houses in Westminster which belonged to the London County Council, a plague of vermin, notably of the species Acanthia lectularia, has invaded certain streets within the borough; and whether he will take steps to see that the municipal authorities disinfect the houses attacked by this pest, seeing that the insects in question are well-known carriers of infection of certain diseases?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I was not previously aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. I have no power to give directions to the local authorities in this matter, but I will communicate with them and inform the hon. Member of the result.

Sir M. CONWAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the female of this enterprising insect lays eggs four times a year, 50 at a time, and that the eradication of a pest of that sort exceeds the powers of the dwellers in most private houses; and will he call the attention of the Westminster municipal authorities to the fact that the Chelsea municipal authorities undertake the extirpation of this enterprising insect, and ask them if they will follow the example of Chelsea?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will certainly do my best to bring this interesting information to their notice.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Has the pest spread to this House?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is this the same kind of pest which was found recently in imported Russian butter?

Mr. MESSER: Can the Minister give us the English name of this insect?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid it has not got one.

HON. MEMBERS: Russian!

SOMERSET.

Mr. GOULD: 40.
asked the Minister of Health the average cost, size, and rent, and what subsidy, both State and local, was paid in respect to houses built by local authorities in the rural districts of Somerset under the 1923 and 1924 Acts for the last available year?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The last year for which figures are available is the year 1930. In that year no subsidies were available under the Act of 1923. The average cost and size of houses built by rural district councils in Somerset in the year were £389 and 794 superficial feet respectively. The rate of State subsidy was in agricultural parishes £11 and in other parishes £7 10s. per annum for 40 years. I regret that the other particulars mentioned are not available.

Mr. GOULD: 41.
asked the Minister of Health the number of houses built in the rural districts of Somerset under the 1923 and 1924 Acts for the past 10 years, respectively, together with the areas in which they were built?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the reply involves a tabular statement I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

STATEMENT showing the number of houses built in each Rural District in Somerset under the Housing Acts, 1923 and 1924.


Rural Districts.
Year ending 31st March, 1924.
Year ending 31st March, 1925.
Year ending 31st March, 1926
Year ending 31st March, 1927.
Year ending 31st March, 1928.
Year ending 31st March, 1929.
Year ending 31st March, 1930.
Year ending 31st March 1931.



1923 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1924 Act.


Axbridge
…
…
…
…
—
24
—
48
8
50
61
44
67
11
43
17
73
68


Bath
…
…
…
…
—
10
—
37
—
43
—
12
—
—
—
—
—
—


Bridgwater
…
…
…
…
4
25
—
28
8
59
66
27
64
12
32
—
—
—


Chard
…
…
…
…
—
8
—
10
4
19
18
19
20
5
—
5
14
18


Clutton
…
…
…
…
—
6
—
11
—
8
99
9
55
15
—
5
8
—


Dulverton
…
…
…
…
—
4
—
11
—
10
—
6
—
—
—
—
—
16


Frome
…
…
…
…
—
4
—
2
6
5
90
4
10
2
—
4
—
—


Keynsham
…
…
…
…
9
30
—
20
—
77
—
106
4
15
—
14
72
6


Langport
…
…
…
…
—
6
—
13
—
11
6
9
86
3
32
2
72
32


Long Ashton
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
101
—
46
—
32
—
6
—
—
12
18


Shepton Mallet
…
…
…
…
—
5
—
5
—
11
—
2
30
5
—
—
8
—


Taunton
…
…
…
…
—
13
10
12
24
13
38
2
—
—

—
26
12


Wellington
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
1
4
3
16
1
22
2
—
2
18
16


Wells
…
…
…
…
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—


Willington
…
…
…
…
—
3
—
10
—
6
2
—
49
5
26
—
36
29


Wincanton
…
…
…
…
—
30
—
9
63
10
48
6
53
9
20
3
6
37


Yeovil
…
…
…
…
—
23
—
23
28
16
58
20
74
8
56
1
140
104

Mr. GOULD: 42.
asked the Minister of Health the estimated needs of working-class houses in the rural districts of Somerset; and whether the various local authorities have submitted schemes designed to meet that need?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The only available information is contained in a Return recently made to me by the county council on the basis of information supplied by the several rural district councils. According to that return (which is still under examination by the county council) there is a need of nearly 1,400 houses. The councils of the districts concerned are generally proceeding with the provision of houses, and in all cases have the matter under their active consideration.

RURAL COTTAGES (ARCHITECTURAL MERITS).

Mr. CHRISTIE: 39.
asked the Minister of Health if he will issue a general circular to local authorities calling attention to the use which might be made of the provisions of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act to preserve cottages of outstanding architectural merit in their areas, and suggesting to them the desirability of seeking the co-operation of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and local archaeological societies, so as to ensure that no such cottages shall be allowed to be destroyed or spoilt without the facilities for reconditioning available under the Act being brought to the notice of the owners?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a circular letter which has already been issued on this subject, and to which I propose to draw the attention of local authorities when the Housing (Rural Workers) Act Amendment Bill of this year has become law.

RURAL DISTRICTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the new proposals in relation to rural housing have been submitted to the Economy Committee?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): The rural housing proposals have not been specifically referred to the Economy Committee. It is, of course, for the committee
itself to determine the direction of its inquiry within its terms of reference. Those terms are sufficiently wide to allow of this question being taken into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be wise, in view of the fact that he set up this committee, to refer such a matter as this to it, in order that, when the House comes to consider it, we shall have their observations, if any, on the matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, I do not think it would be a wise thing at all. I am prepared to trust the Economy Committee to carry out their work in full under the terms of reference.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman still hold the opinion about the Economy Committee that he originally announced, that he could write their report himself before they sat?

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Major the Marquess of TITCH-FIELD: 36.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has read the report by Sir Walter Kinnear, the Controller of the National Health Insurance Department, which states that a recent investigation showed that 12 persons out of 100 were drawing sickness benefit when they were capable of returning to work; and whether he proposes to take any steps to rectify this state of affairs?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am aware of the statement referred to, which was to the effect that out of a large and representative group of insured persons who were in receipt of sickness or disablement benefit on a certain day, and whose title to benefit was made the subject of special investigation, it was found that 12 per cent. were capable of work, and consequently not entitled to benefit. I have already addressed circulars to all approved societies and to all insurance medical practitioners on the steps to be taken to avoid payment of benefit to persons not entitled thereto, and I would also refer the Noble Lord to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) on 18th June.

TOWN COUNCILLORS (PAYMENT).

Mr. McGOVERN: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he will bring in an amending Bill to make provision for payment of members of town councils for loss of time, in view of the fact that it has become a full-time job?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that I cannot undertake to introduce further legislation at the present time.

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the fact that members of local county councils are paid, and town councillors are not, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in an amending Bill giving this power to town councils?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think my hon. Friend must realise that at this stage further legislation is impossible.

Mr. EDE: Is it not the fact that members of county councils are only paid travelling expenses?

WIDOWS' PENSIONS.

Sir K. WOOD: 44.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons who, since June, 1929, have been refused their application for a widows' pension?

Mr. GREENWOOD: 67,049 applications for widows' pensions have been rejected since 1st June, 1929.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to withdraw any statements that he has made on this subject?

Mr. GREENWOOD: None whatever.

Mr. SANDHAM: In view of the interest of the Opposition in an important matter of this description, is the Minister prepared to work on the lines of an agreed Bill, to be presented to Parliament, to dispense with these anomalies?

WORKS COUNCILS BILL.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to grant facilities for the further stages of the Works Councils Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am afraid that I can hold out no hope of time being found for the discussion of this Bill.

Mr. MANDER: In view of the great advantages which this Measure would bring to industry, will the Prime Minister consider giving it facilities either next Session or the Session after?

The PRIME MINISTER: If that question is repeated in due time, I shall be very glad to answer it.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Arising out of the original answer——

Mr. SPEAKER: The original answer was quite conclusive.

FOREIGN COMPETITION AND IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Sir H. CROFT: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the Motion tabled this week by 213 Members of this House calling for immediate action in view of the grave depression in this country and throughout the Empire; and whether he will give an early date for its discussion?—["That this House, realising the grave and progressive depression in industry, agriculture, and employment in Great Britain and in all the countries of the British Empire, is of opinion that there is imperative need for action in securing the Home market against unfair foreign competition as the only means of restoring production, maintaining the standard of living of the workers, and providing new revenue for the relief of taxation, and in establishing the widest measure of reciprocal preference between all parts of the Empire as the most speedy and most effect means of promoting the export trade and shipping industry of Great Britain and the prosperity of the Empire as a whole."]

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has been called to this Motion. The pressure of business, however, is such as to make it impossible for me to promise an early date for its discussion.

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not more important to take immediate steps to restore industry, in view of the alarming increase of unemployment, than to pursue Measures which have no relation to the crisis?

POISON GAS.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the scheme detailing measures which should be taken for the protection of civilians from poison gas which was recommended by an international committee of experts in 1928, any steps have been taken on the matter in this country; and what steps have been taken by foreign nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: The report to which the hon. and gallant Member refers has been brought before the Standing Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence concerned with these matters. Various foreign nations are known to be actively studying this question, but I am unable to say what steps they are taking. As I have said in answer to previous questions on this subject, the ratification of the Geneva Gas Protocol of 1925 by most of the countries in Europe provides an important safeguard against this form of attack.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Can we have an assurance that this matter of the protection of civilians is receiving attention?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MENTAL HOSPITAL, NAPSBURY.

Mr. MESSER: 48.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that 100 mental patients are compelled to sleep on the floor at Napsbury mental hospital owing to lack of accommodation, and that the Middlesex County Council submitted plans as far back as 1924, which have only recently been passed by the board of control; and if he will inquire into the causes of delay?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am aware of the reasons which delayed the scheme for the provision of additional accommodation, and I am communicating with my hon. Friend in regard to them. Approval has recently been given to the first section of the scheme, which comprises all the administrative buildings and accommodation for 1,046 patients.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH CIRCULAR NO. 1060.

Mr. WHITE: 49.
asked the Minister of Health to what extent local authorities have complied with Circular 1060 of 19th December, 1929?

Mr. McELWEE: 50.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities that have responded to the request made in Circular 1060 (England and Wales), issued on 19th December. 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not receive information from local authorities of action taken under this Circular, but I have no reason for thinking that they do not generally act in conformity with it.

POOR LAW (TEST WORK).

Mr. OLDFIELD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is yet in a position to give a decision upon the question of the use of men in receipt of out-relief upon the work on the playing ground of the London County Council's open-air school at Downham?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Marley) on 21st May, I, some time ago, informed the Council that my approval of test work was subject to the general condition that it does not cover work which forms part of necessary maintenance or upkeep and would otherwise be done for wages.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Would my right hon. Friend kindly answer my Question No. 51?

Mr. GREENWOOD: This was an answer to Question No. 51.

Mr. OLDFIELD: I asked whether my right hon. Friend had yet had time to look into the question of the use of labour from the relieving offices on this open-air school work at Downham. May I ask him to look into that question and give me an answer? This question was on the Order Paper a week ago.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer I have given really dealt with the general attitude that I have taken towards this problem. With regard to the Downham case, if my hon. Friend will put down his question again as a specific question with regard to Downham, I will give him an answer.

Mr. OLDFIELD: I have no objection to putting down again a question with regard to Downham, but I would point out that that will be the third time that I have asked this specific question.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL INSTITUTIONS (DISPOSAL OF WORK).

Mr. OLDFIELD: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that office furniture and dustbins made in the woodwork classes and in the sheet metalwork classes in the non-residential training centres of the London County Council are used for purposes other than those of the centres themselves or of those attending them; that the mats which are made by the inmates of the Belmont institution are used for purposes other than those of the institution or of the inmates; and whether, in view of his recent representations to the London County Council regarding work which would otherwise be performed for wages, he intends to take any action?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information on the particular point raised. But work which forms part of necessary maintenance or upkeep, and would otherwise be done for wages, is expressly excluded from the general approval of the Minister.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Has my right hon. Friend yet had time to look into the specific questions which I have addressed to him in Question No. 52?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Arising out of the earlier answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has any means by which he can see that these circulars which he issues to the London County Council are in fact carried out?

Mr. GREENWOOD: That is a matter of controversy which is going on between the County Council and myself at the present time.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Owing to the very unsatisfactory nature of the two replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this question at a later date on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

BIRTHS (REGISTRATION).

Mr. DAY: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the present
Regulations existing for the registration of illegitimate children, he will consider the introduction of legislation which will have as its object the registration of the birth of these children in such a way that they do not bear the stigma of illegitimacy?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would remind the hon. Member that the primary object of birth registration is the establishment of a record for the purpose of furnishing legal evidence in regard to matters of civil status, and that, so long as a distinction is drawn by the law for many important purposes between legitimate and illegitimate children, the obliteration of this distinction in the birth register would merely destroy its utility to a very large extent without affording any compensating advantages to the individuals affected.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in legislation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It would mean a very large volume of legislation affecting civic status.

WAR LOAN.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 55.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the proposal of Mr. Hoover to forgo payments of War debts for one year, he will consider reducing or suspending the payment of interest on all classes of War Loan for one year?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: No, Sir.

CIVIL SERVICE BONUS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir GODFREY DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to defer any further reduction in the cost-of-living bonus until after the report of the Royal Commission on the subject has been issued and considered?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given on 11th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Shepherd).

Sir H. CROFT: Is it not possible for an interim report to be speeded up with regard to this particular subject?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Seeing that the report of the Royal Commission is expected in a week or two, I do not see what useful purposes an interim report would serve.

Commander SOUTHBY: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the formal request asking him to receive a deputation representative of ex-service civil servants with a view to their discussing with him any further cuts in the cost-of-living bonus; and if he will agree to receive such a deputation before any further reduction is made in the salaries of this class of civil servants?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I have already undertaken to receive a deputation on the subject referred to from the staff side of the National Whitley Council. This body, through its affiliated associations, represents the majority of ex-service men in the Civil Service, and I think it unnecessary to receive a separate deputation on the subject from the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are any further cuts in contemplation in civil servants' pay?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It will not be known until the middle of August what the figure will be under the existing arrangement.

PUBLIC WORKS (LOANS).

Mr. McSHANE: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that certain private financial corporations are offering to local authorities, for carrying out public works, loans at a lower rate of interest than that charged by the Public Works Loans Board; and whether he will consider a reduction of the rate charged by that Board also?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The rate of interest charged to borrowers from the Local Loans Fund depends on the market price of Local Loans Stock though it is impracticable to follow day to day fluctuations. I am glad to say that in view of the recent improvement
in market conditions the minimum rate will be reduced to 4½ per cent. as from to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BANK CREDIT (TRADERS).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the recent restriction of bank credit to traders in Great Britain, he will consider making arrangements to extend to internal transactions in this country the facilities of the credits insurance scheme which is at present only concerned with overseas trade?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am not aware of any recent restriction of bank credit to traders in Great Britain, and the question does not therefore appear to arise.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the greater rate of interest paid in Great Britain as compared with foreign countries constitutes a very serious restriction upon home producers?

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. MANDER: 71.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department for what reasons the guarantee for export credits is 8 per cent. in this country as against 1 or 2 per cent. in Germany and Italy so far as Russian trade is concerned; and if he will consider altering our export credits system so that our charges may be comparable with those of other countries?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): For Russia, as for other countries, premiums charged under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme are not fixed, but vary from ease to case and from time to time. I am not aware of the manner in which the rates of premium charged in Germany and Italy for guarantees in connection with Russion business, are fixed, but in this country they are assessed by the Advisory Committee, and I do not propose to modify the existing practice.

Mr. MANDER: Will not the hon. Gentleman take steps to see that business men in this country are in at least as good a position as their competitors in Germany and Italy?

Mr. GILLETT: I am not quite certain that the hon. Member's figures are quite up-to-date.

Sir N. G RATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to convey to the Financial Secretary the information that he has just given to the House?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Are the Soviet Government themselves giving credits for cheap coal?

Mr. HAYCOCK: Has the Department yet lost one brass farthing through guaranteeing credits to Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ALLOTMENTS (TITHE).

Mr. OLDFIELD: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the hardship caused to the holders of plots of land by the fact that in the absence of any agreement to the contrary each individual plot holder is responsible not only for the payment of church tithe upon his own plot but for the tithe upon every other plot which may be comprised in the original unit; and whether he proposes to take any action to remedy this state of affairs?

Dr. ADDISON: I am aware of the facts referred to in my hon. Friend's question, and am at present conferring with the different parties concerned. I can make no promise as to legislation.

LIVESTOCK (CONVEYANCE).

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what provision is made in Ireland for the cleansing and disinfecting of vehicles used for the carrying of livestock; and whether the same or similar regulations have been adopted in Ireland with respect to the conveyance of livestock by road and rail as are embodied in the Transit of Animals (Amendment) Order, 1930?

Dr. ADDISON: Under the general Orders of the Departments in Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State, similar provision, generally speaking, is made for the cleansing and disinfection of vehicles used for the conveyance of animals by road and rail in Ireland as is required by the Orders in force in Great Britain, including the Order specified by the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. MILLAR: Will the right hon. Gentleman supply the House with a copy of the Regulations that apply in Ireland?

Dr. ADDISON: I will try to supply the hon. Member with a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

PUBLIC SERVICE VEHICLE LICENCES.

Mr. REMER: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is prepared to make regulations providing that, when in the opinion of the area commissioners opposition to an application for a licence is frivolous or trivial, an order shall be made for the payment to the successful applicant of his costs incurred in the application?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): My right hon. Friend has no power to make such a regulation.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. Friend as to the heavy expense incurred in these applications?

Mr. PARKINSON: To meet appeals against frivolous objections should not require heavy additional expenses.

Mr. REMER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these small omnibus operators have to employ counsel at high fees in order to protect their interests, and, unless the Minister acts, they will have to go out of business?

STREET CROSSINGS.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: 60.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will recommend to local authorities in urban areas the initiation of the insertion of steel studs in the roadway at recognised crossing places for pedestrians, as has been done in Paris?

Mr. PARKINSON: It has already been suggested to highway authorities that pedestrian crossing places could with advantage be indicated, in suitable places, by means of "white lines" across the roadway. It is well understood that the term "white line," when used in this connection, is not restricted in its meaning to continuous lines painted on the carriageway but also covers permanent markings by means of white metal studs or discs.

Sir G. DALRYMPLE-WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at certain places in London, pedestrians cross the roadway at every conceivable place, and at every conceivable angle, causing not only risk to their own lives, but risk of vehicles coming into collision?

Mr. B. RILEY: Has the system in operation in Paris been considered by the Department?

Mr. PARKINSON: Careful consideration has been given to this by my right hon. Friend who is taking great interest in the efforts being made by local authorities to deal with this problem.

MOTOR VEHICLES (HEADLIGHTS).

Mr. REMER: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport if it is his intention to make any regulations with reference to the size of headlights on motor vehicles?

Mr. PARKINSON: It is the intention of my right hon. Friend to make regulations which would prohibit the use of headlights of excessive power. The question of size is, I think, not a material factor.

Mr. REMER: Will the hon. Gentleman, before he actually makes these regulations, consult the French Government as to what they are doing in the matter with a view to adopting similar regulations here?

Mr. PARKINSON: In reply to a question yesterday, my right hon. Friend made it quite clear that he had full knowledge of the French experiments to which he has given consideration.

LOW-TEMPERATURE CARBONISATION.

Mr. MANDER: 72.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether a report has now been presented with reference to the experiments carried out on the Turner process of low-temperature carbonisation at Coal-burn; and whether arrangements are being made for the continuance of work at the pit concerned?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to him in answer to a similar question on 23rd February. Publication of the report is
delayed pending settlement of objections raised thereto by Mr. Turner. I have no information concerning the point raised in the last part of the question; but perhaps the hon. Member will pass on to me any information in his possession.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 74.
asked the Secretary of State for Scot-land whether he has any estimate of the number of agricultural workers unemployed in Scotland at present?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The answer is in the negative. There are on the live register at the various Employment Exchanges in Scotland 644 men and 65 women describing themselves as agricultural workers, but these figures cannot be regarded as giving any reliable guide to the extent of unemployment in agriculture.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: How are these agricultural workers living in the meantime?

Mr. BUCHANAN: In view of the fact that these figures are very necessary, would not the right hon. Gentleman at least approach both the trade unions and the employers concerned to see if they have any reliable figures?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Are these people entitled to poor relief as able-bodied poor?

Mr. ADAMSON: They are entitled to apply for poor relief.

BUILDING MATERIALS (COST).

Mr. JAMES BROWN: 75.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that in Ayrshire a substantial increase has been made recently in the prices quoted by local brickmakers for three and a-half inch composition bricks specified for housing schemes; and whether he intends taking any action in view of the effect that any increase in the cost of building materials will have on the housing activities of local authorities?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: From inquiries which I have made, it would appear that
an increase such as is referred to by my right hon. Friend has been made. I have no knowledge of any economic conditions warranting such an increase, and I have caused the incident to be reported to the committee appointed to survey the price of building materials. I understand that investigations are being made on behalf of that committee, and the result will have my immediate attention, as I fully realise the adverse effect that any unwarranted increase in the price of building materials would have on proposed housing schemes at this time when so many local authorities are on the point of putting housing schemes in hand.

Mr. BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman any power to deal with the matter?

Mr. ADAMSON: As soon as I have the report of the Committee, I shall see if anything can be done.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: In the event of profiteering being proved, will the right hon. Gentleman take action?

GLASGOW GREEN (LAY PREACHERS).

Mr. McGOVERN: 76.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is prepared to inquire into the case with a view to the release of the lay preachers who have been imprisoned for breach of by-laws in preaching the gospel on Glasgow Green?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have made inquiries into this case and am informed that the facts are as follow: Four lay preachers were charged in Glasgow Central Police Court on 17th June with having contravened the Glasgow Public Parks By-laws by taking part in a meeting or demonstration without the written authority of the corporation or the Director of Parks. They pleaded guilty, and were fined £3 with the alternative of 20 days' imprisonment, 10 days being allowed for payment of the fine. On 21st June they again offended and appeared in Court on the following day, when three of them who admitted the offence charged were again fined £3 or 20 days' imprisonment, no time being allowed for payment in view of the recent previous conviction. The case against one of the four offenders, who pleaded "not guilty," was continued until 3rd July, and he is at present on
bail. Another offender who appeared in Court on 22nd June for the first time was fined £3 or 20 days' imprisonment, 10 days being allowed for payment of the fine. I am in communication with the local authority with a view to ascertaining if there is any difficulty in the way of these persons getting permits to preach the gospel on Glasgow Green at any time they so desire.

Mr. McGOVERN: Is he aware that these men, and others, have been refused permits at different times, and will he, in view of that, commute the rest of the sentence—a savage sentence—and release these men forthwith?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already stated that I am making inquiries and shall be in a position to reach a decision when the inquiry is completed.

Mr. MAXTON: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the power to release these men lies with him and not with the Glasgow Corporation; and, while he is making his inquiries, will he release these men, as it is a public disgrace that men should be punished in these days for preaching Christianity, or anything else?

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he is dealing with the Glasgow Corporation or the authorities in Scotland which deal with the gentlemen now in prison, find out whether or not Glasgow's success was based upon letting Glasgow live and proceed by the preaching of the Word, and, if that is so, how is it that men can be imprisoned for preaching the Word?

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Cannot we have an undertaking from the Lord Advocate on this matter?

Mr. McGOVERN: In view of the importance of this question, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared during the time that this discussion is taking place, to release these men and allow them freedom during that time—to release them at once?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said, in reply to a supplementary question, that I am making inquiries, and as soon as the inquiries are completed I shall be in a position to answer.

Mr. MAXTON: We are not asking whether you are making inquiries, but whether you will let them out.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. [Interruption.] Surely I am entitled to say that I intend, at the earliest possible moment, to raise this question, and I give the right hon. Gentleman notice of that fact?

Mr. McGOVERN: On a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the demand for the release of these men. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had a reply.

Mr. McGOVERN: I want an answer to the question. Is he prepared to release these men at present in prison? [Interruption.] I want to know if he is prepared to release these men. He has not given that undertaking. [An HON. MEMBER: "Sit down!"] You need not tell me to sit down. I will sit down when I like. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will answer the question.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I must press for an answer to that question. [Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer that question. I must demand an answer to a question which is agitating the minds of the public of Glasgow at the present time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] I must press for an answer to the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"] I will not sit down. The question has not been answered. [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must name the hon. Member for disregarding the Ruling of the Chair.

The PRIME MINISTER: I beg to move, "That Mr. McGovern be suspended from the service of the House."

Mr. McGOVERN: That is about the only thing he can do.

Question put, "That Mr. McGovern be suspended from the service of the House."

The House divided: Ayes, 315; Noes, 16.

Division No. 370.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgess, F. G.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Butler, R. A.
Dukes, C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Duncan, Charles


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ede, James Chuter


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cape, Thomas
Edmunds, J. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Ammon, Charles George
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Elmley, Viscount


Arnott, John
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Attlee, Clement Richard
Chamberlain Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John


Ayles, Walter
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Foot, Isaac


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Charleton, H. C.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chater, Daniel
Frece, Sir Walter de


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Christle, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Barnes, Alfred John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Barr, James
Clarke, J. S.
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gibbins, Joseph


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gill, T. H.


Benson, G.
Colville, Major D. J.
Gillett, George M.


Blindell, James
Compton, Joseph
Glassey, A. E.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cooper, A. Duff
Gossling, A. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Gould, F.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Boyce, Leslie
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gray, Milner


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Briscoe, Richard George
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Daggar, George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh
Groves, Thomas E.


Brothers, M.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Buchan, John
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Day, Harry
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Mathers, George
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hammersley, S. S.
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Hartington, Marquess of
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Haslam, Henry C.
Montague, Frederick
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph
Smithers, Waldron


Henderson, Right Hon. A, (Burnley)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Muff, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Nali-Cain, A. R. N.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Herriotts, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Noel Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Strauss, G. R.


Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sutton, J. E.


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Palin, John Henry
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Paling, Wilfrid
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Palmer, E. T.
Thompson, Luke


Hurd, Percy A
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thomson, Sir F.


Isaacs, George
Penny, Sir George
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Jones, Rt. Hon Lalf (Camborne)
Perry, S. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tiliett, Ben


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Knight, Holford
Pole, Major D. G.
Tout, W. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Train, J.


Lang, Gordon
Price, M. P.
Vaughan, David


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Pybus, Percy John
Viant, S. P.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Walkden, A. G.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Ramsbotham, H.
Walker, J.


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Capt. D. E (Hornsey)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Raynes, W. R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Remer, John R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Lawrence, Susan
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Watkins, F. C.


Leach, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Westwood, Joseph


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Romeril, H. G.
White, H. G.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Longbottom, A. W.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lunn, William
Sanders, W. S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Savery, S. S.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scott, James
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McElwee, A.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McEntee, V. L.
Sherwood, G. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shillaker, J. F.
Womersley, W. J.


Malone, C. L.'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shinwell, E.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Mansfield, W.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sinkinson, George
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Marjorlbanks, Edward
Sitch, Charles H.



Markham, S. F.
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Marshall, Fred
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Maxton, James


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Sandham, E.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashtord)
Simmons, C. J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Kelly, W. T.
Stephen, Campbell


Brooke, W.
Kirkwood, D.



Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Kinley.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Shettleston must leave the House forthwith.

The hon. Member refused to withdraw.

Mr. SPEAKER: then directed the SERJEANT-AT-ARMS to cause Mr. MCGOVERN
to be removed from the House, and stated that grave disorder having arisen he suspended the Sitting of the House till a quarter-past Four.

The hon. Member was then removed by force.

Sitting suspended at Two Minutes be-fore Four of the Clock.

MR. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Seventeen Minutes after Four o'Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have to inform the House that recourse to force having been necessary to remove the hon. Member for Shettleston he is therefore suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of the Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN RHODESIA.

STATEMENT BY MR. THOMAS.

Earl WINTERTON: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is now in a position to make any further statement regarding the proposals for the amalgamation of Southern and Northern Rhodesia?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have given careful consideration to the request received from the Government of Southern Rhodesia and from the elected members of the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia, that a conference should be held in order to consider the possibility of amalgamating Northern Rhodesia with Southern Rhodesia under a constitution similar to the present constitution of Southern Rhodesia.
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are not prepared to agree to the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia at the present time. They consider that a substantially greater advance should be made in the development of Northern Rhodesia before any final opinion can be formed as to its future. It must be remembered that it is less than eight years since His Majesty's Government assumed direct responsibility for the administration of Northern Rhodesia. Very considerable progress has been made during these years, but even greater changes, affecting the whole balance of the various interests in the country are almost certain to result from the development of
the mining industry. At present the European population is small and scattered over a wide extent of territory, while the problems of native development are in a stage which makes it-inevitable that His Majesty's Government should hesitate to let them pass even partially out of their responsibility. On the other hand, His Majesty's Government, while considering that amalgamation is not practicable now or in the near future, do not wish to reject the idea of amalgamation in principle should circumstances in their opinion justify it at a later date, and fully realise the prejudicial effect upon progress in both countries if such a rejection were regarded as a permanent bar to their future evolution. Their view is that for some time to come Northern Rhodesia should continue to work out its destiny as a separate entity, observing the closest possible co-ordination with its neighbours, and especially with Southern Rhodesia.
His Majesty's Government feel that, in order to prevent misconception, they should state at the outset that the conditions of any scheme of amalgamation, if and when it arises for actual discussion, must make a definite provision for the welfare and development of the native population. Barotseland would necessarily require separate treatment, and arrangements may possibly have to be made in regard to other parts of Northern Rhodesia. Without going into details of these contingencies, it is sufficient that it should be indicated that the territory to be amalgamated with Southern Rhodesia would not necessarily have boundaries coterminous with the present boundaries of Northern Rhodesia. It will be remembered that, in order to secure as great a measure of continuity of policy for the future as may be possible, the Secretary of State for the Colonies and I arranged some few weeks ago to confer with members of the two Opposition parties on this matter. The conclusions which I have announced are, of course, those of His Majesty's Government, but I am happy to think, as the result of the conversations referred to, that they are likely to commend themselves to Members on the other side of the House.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the important statement which he has just made, and which so obviously commends itself to all parties in the House, will be cabled direct to the two Governments concerned?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly. Arrangements are being made to make it public.

INDIA (FINANCIAL STABILITY).

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I desire, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to make a brief personal explanation, and to resolve a doubt which may have arisen owing to a question and an answer in the House yesterday. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) asked the Prime Minister whether the important declaration made by him last Friday on the financial position in India, was made upon the sole authority of His Majesty's Government, or whether it had been the subject of consultation with the leaders of the other parties. The Prime Minister said:
I am afraid that I cannot charge my memory definitely at the moment as to what the operation was, but certainly it was communicated to the leaders of the parties. Whether they were consulted or not, J. am not very sure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1931 col. 1260, Vol. 254.]
I desire to state that I was not consulted in any way whatever. I was asked on Thursday evening to put a question down on Friday. The question was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister) as I was unable to be in my place. In accordance with the usual courtesy, a draft of the answer which the Government proposed to give was sent to me just before the Adjournment of the House on Thursday night. My opinion on the draft answer was not asked, nor did I offer any opinion upon it. I ought to add that, in the circumstances, for which of course we are not responsible, I believe that the step taken by His Majesty's Government was proper and necessary. I cannot now discuss the reasons for its necessity or the inferences to be drawn from it and I must reserve my liberty to judge of the sufficiency of the "suitable conditions" which the Prime Minister said would attach to the giving of financial support.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Perhaps the House will allow me to add a few words as to the communications which passed with the representatives of the Liberal party in this matter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) being away from London, on a political engagement in the North of England, the Secretary of State asked me to see him on Thursday afternoon. He then told me that the Government had decided to make a public announcement and read me its terms. He also informed me of the reasons for that announcement. No formal assent was sought for or desired by the right hon. Gentleman, and could not, of course, in any ease have been given, without consultation with my colleagues and without time for full consideration of the very large economic and political issues involved. No objection was raised to the publication which, I understood, had already been decided upon definitely by the Government.

The PRIME MINISTER: I ought to say that the reason why I hesitated was that I did not wish to commit anyone to responsibilities which ought not to be put upon their shoulders. I did not take these actions myself. I only asked if the usual things had been done regarding the leaders of the other parties, and I was informed that they had been done. I am quite prepared to take what has been said as an accurate statement of what happened regarding both right hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, and I am exceedingly obliged to them for their statements.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be next week, and also whether he is in a position, as he indicated he might be, to tell us what business it is proposed to take before the end of the Session, and when the House will rise for the Summer Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: In regard to the last part of the question, I am trying to work on a programme which will enable us to rise on the last day of July—Friday, 31st July. I cannot make that as a pledge, because there are certain
matters that would have to be arranged, if possible, but that is my intention, and I hope with a certain amount of co-operation that that intention will be carried out. As regards the business for next week, it will be as follows:

Monday: Agricultural Marketing Bill, Report.

Tuesday: Housing (Rural Authorities) Money Resolution, Committee; and Consumers' Council, Money Resolution Committee.

Wednesday: Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill, Second Reading, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution; Report stage of the Money Resolutions taken on Tuesday.

Thursday: Supply (13th Allotted Day). The Vote will be announced later. Unemployment Insurance, Money Resolution, Report.

Friday: Second Readings of Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill; Isle of Man (Customs) Bill; and Public Works Loan Bill. The last two Bills are not in the hands of hon. Members yet, but I think they will be in their hands to-morrow. I ought to say—and I think the House will probably allow me—that if it is necessary to introduce some form of Coal legislation, I may be compelled to ask the House to allow me to vary that programme.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: With regard to Monday's business, may I remind the Prime Minister that there is, what I understand to be a very contentious Bill, to be taken at half-past Seven on that evening, the discussion on which will run until 11 o'clock. I do not know what his intentions are, in view of that fact, with regard to the Report stage of the Government Bill which he has put down for that day. Further, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he hopes to prorogue or to adjourn at the end of July?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid it will be an Adjournment. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for reminding me of the Private Bill which is down for Monday. If the House will be good enough to leave the matter as it is, we shall see what can be done. We are hopeful that that Bill will not be quite so contentious as the right hon. Gentleman expects.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the question of business, may I ask the Prime Minister when he proposes to give the opportunity for debate upon the declaration of a British guarantee in regard to Indian finance, which he promised at Question Time yesterday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have misunderstood. I thought that it was quite specifically stated yesterday that there will be no Debate on this subject until a Money Resolution is required.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am ready to refresh the right hon. Gentleman's memory. I asked him this supplementary question yesterday:
May I ask the Prime Minister whether in view of the fact that his statement definitely commits this country to certain contingent obligations, in view of which the investors throughout the country are being guided.… the right hon. Gentleman will not allow the House an opportunity of Debate upon this question?
The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly there would be a Debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1931; col. 1201, Vol. 254.]
I am reading the exact sequence in the OFFICIAL REPORT. May I ask him if he will adhere to that. It is a perfectly specific undertaking.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think, charging my memory, that the right hon. Gentleman was very economical in his quotations. That answer was covered by a fuller answer on the same point. There will be a Debate, should the occasion arise for making our pledge effective.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Does the Prime Minister not realise that the pledge is effective from the moment it is given? People are investing, and are encouraged to invest their money from what the Government has said. Can we possibly leave the matter in its present vague condition?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I have nothing to add to what I have said. The pledge is effective as to India, but if that requires to be made a fact, there will be a Debate in this House.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask the Prime Minister two questions in regard to the Anomalies Bill? Is it the intention of the Government to take the Committee stage of that Bill on the Floor of the
House or to send it upstairs, and is it the intention of the Government to make the vote a party vote, or a free vote on that Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: Those questions will be decided later. The Second Reading will be taken on Wednesday. Possibly the Committee stage will be on the Floor of the House.

ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 184.]

EXPIRING LAWS.

Report from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence, brought up, and read;

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, further considered.

[3RD ALLOTTED DAY.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Exemptions.)

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, in page 20, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
(l) is used for the purpose of a wharf, pier, or jetty for the shipping and unshipping of merchandise not belonging to or intended for the use of the owner or occupier.
This Amendment raises in a more direct and concise form the principle of the Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage. At that time, I endeavoured to explain to the learned Solicitor-General that the parties mainly affected by the Clause as it stands were wharfingers, as compared with public concerns, such as the Port of London Authority, carrying on the same business. It is to the same point that I now wish to direct the attention of the House. I endeavoured to persuade the Solicitor-General that the Port of London Authority, and those who are carrying on the work of the wharves, piers and jetties for shipping and unshipping merchandise, were carrying on the same kind of work, and that no differentiation could, in justice, be made between them. I think the learned Solicitor-General will agree with me that the wharfingers and the Port of London. Authority cannot be compared, in regard to the amount of work which they do. It is fair to say that the wharfingers employ more employés. The argument of the learned Solicitor-General, in resisting that Amendment, was to point out that the charges of the Port of London Authority were regulated by Statute.
It was pointed out in reply to that that the wharfingers had arrangements and agreements with the Port of London Authority, by which their charges are regulated in accordance with the charges of the Port of London Authority. I believe they are on the same scale. He said that the case of the Port of London Authority was clearly one where a company had submitted to statutory regulation, as being run for the public bene-
fit, and was one of the forms of nationalisation. On that he appears to base his case for distinguishing the Port of London Authority from the wharfingers, although they are carrying on the same business. He continued by saying that the profits of the Port of London Authority can only be applied to reducing the charge to the consumer. There is no reason why the land tax should not be applied to those profits, which are exempted from tax by the Bill. This is a very simple proposition. It comes to this, that unless you are devoting your profits to the community, you are, there and then, a fit object of a special tax. There may be reasons, but it is a very astonishing proposition to hear in the House of Commons. If it is to be basis of the policy of taxation of the Government in the future, the co-operative societies may have a genuine grievance, as they are not exempted in this Bill from taxation.
The main test of the Solicitor-General's case was put by the right hon. Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), who said that the claim was put forward not because of the interests of the man who owns the property, but in the interests of the man who uses the property. That, I think, is the main test we should apply in considering this Amendment. If the Amendment is not carried, the obvious result will be a further impost upon the sites of the wharves, the jetties and so on. Somebody has to pay for it. The Solicitor-General said, let the wharfowners pay for it. If the wharfingers are to pay this tax, they have either to pass it on to those who use the wharves and jetties, and who have the use of steamers, barges and wharves of the Port of London, or they have got to bear it themselves, and obtain less profit than is legitimately granted by Statute to the Port of London Authority. It cannot be doubted that the disability will be passed on to the users of the wharves.
The learned Solicitor-General, in his attempt to kill the crow, shoots a whole flock of pigeons. The principle underlying the rejection of the Amendment is clear; the learned Gentleman makes it obvious that it is one of the results of nationalisation. Although the Liberal party are not present in great numbers, it is worth their while considering
whether to continue to subscribe to the principles of nationalisation, which, in the whole of this Bill, has been causing so much trouble.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope the Solicitor-General will be a little more favourable to it than he was last time. On the last occasion, he devoted a good deal of his argument to a discussion of the position of railway hotels. We were taking a number of Amendments together, but now we are considering exclusively the case of the wharves. Last time the Solicitor-General maintained only one defence against the attack on the wharves; he felt the need to be consistent. I have not noticed quite such a devotion to consistency, in the days that have intervened since he made that speech. We are, for example, to have one law in Scotland and another law in England. I venture to suggest that the real consistency here is, to treat dock and dock alike.
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment quoted something that I said last time about this Amendment being not exclusively in the interests of the owner. What I actually said was that the claim was put forward from this side of the House entirely in the interest of the man who uses a dock. The way in which this Amendment is framed, is that it will give relief where the wharf, pier or jetty is used for the
shipping and unshipping of merchandise, not belonging to or intended for the use of the owner or occupier.
I am concerned with the people who use the wharf. The Port of London has been cited. It is much the biggest case, but it is not an exclusive case. The same practice and method would apply in other parts of the country. In Middlesbrough, Dundee, I think Leith, and Liverpool, and probably also Manchester, there are privately-owned wharves which are used by people conducting the ordinary trade in the ports. In London 40 per cent. has been cited as the amount of trade coming into the Port of London which is handled at the wharves. They use those wharves, not because they want to give a preference to a privately-owned wharf over one owned by the
Port of London, but because it is the best for their trade. If the Solicitor-General will go back into the whole history of the Port of London, he will find that there is no case for saying that here is private enterprise on the one hand and public enterprise on the other.
The whole question of whether wharves should be maintained as privately-owned or publicly-owned was fully gone into when the Port of London Authority was created They were not amalgamated into a single amalgamation with the dock companies, because that was not in the interests of the people using the Port of London. The hon. and learned Gentleman can argue nationalisation against individualism at other times on much broader issues than the issue we are concerned with here, which is, simply and solely, what is best for the Port of London, and for the general trade going into that port? There is no question about excess charges being made; these are covered by the agreement. Nobody has suggested that there is going to be any change. An agreement exists under which a charge is made in the Port of London area and the same charge is made by the wharfingers. There is no question of a change, but if this proposal goes through I think it likely that there will be a change, and a higher charge may be made at the wharves, not because they are profiteering, but because they will inevitably pass this on, and the only result of the action of the Solicitor-General and the Government will be that a higher charge will be made at the wharves, and the people who use them will not have the opportunity of going elsewhere. They cannot do their work in one of the larger docks used for ocean liners: they will have to go on using these wharves, and very likely will have to pay a higher charge.
I am told that a very great deal of the trade that comes to these privately-owned wharves of London is coasting trade. That is a trade which has been suffering a great deal. The Port of London, of course, has a trade consisting of all nationalities. In the coasting trade it is almost exclusively British ships which are used. Therefore, if you are going to put on any burden, do not select the kind of dock into which exclusively British shipping goes. The coasting trade is a
competitor of the railways. The railways and their terminals are exempt from this tax under this Bill. In the name of consistency, to which the Solicitor-General has appealed, may we not claim that if you are going to exempt the terminals and property and docks of the railway companies, you ought equally to exempt the terminals of the coasting trade, which is carrying on a business in competition with the railways? If we are to base ourselves on consistency, the whole case is made out for giving this exemption. I do not think I need say more; there is a real case, in fairness, to be met here. The trade covers, I believe, as much as 40 per cent. of the shipping of the port. The case has been put by the traders using the port, and it has been put-equally strongly by the labour employed there. I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been notified of this.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden) signified dissent.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: If the re presentations have not reached the Chancellor, then I do not base myself upon that, but I am informed that there was strong support for these proposals on the part of people employed in the docks. I put my claim simply on the grounds of justice and convenience. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the sacred name of Free Trade. He has been the champion of Free Trade and has said that the success of the country depends upon maintaining our shipping, and of putting no burdens upon the shipping coming into our ports, or on the shipping trade of this country. I hope that one of his last acts towards the close of this Bill, as the champion of Free Trade, will be to see that this burden is not placed upon 40 per cent. of the shipping coming into the Port of London.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): The argument of the right hon. Gentleman might have been applicable if he had been asking that the Port of London should be exempted. I agree that it may be said it is illogical to make any exemptions, but I can picture his indignation if the Port of London Authority had not been exempted. He would then have said, "Here you have a statutory body, under the control of Par-
liament, limited in its powers, not able to make profits, which is devoting the whole of its resources to the community; what right have you to tax it?" If the argument addressed to the House had been intended to remove the Port of London from the exemption to equalise matters, I could have understood it. But if one looks at the argument as presented, it is an argument which, if one is to have consistency and logic, will inevitably lead to exemptions of every unit in the country. For if the wharves, why not factories? And if factories, why not living houses? Where you have a direct statutory control, and where the profits are not devoted to any private individual but are devoted to the consumers of the enterprise, there is a line which can legitimately be drawn, and although it is true to say that, by giving this exemption to statutory undertakings, we have departed from the strict and logical sequence of land taxation, yet I think the exemption of statutory undertakings would have been difficult to escape in this House. I think that, really, is the defence of the position as it stands in the Bill.
The Mover of the Amendment suggested that I had said that this was a step towards nationalisation. I think he will find that that was not the sense in which I was speaking. I said that the Port of London Authority was one form of nationalisation, and just as you exempt Crown property, which is nationalised property, and local authorities' property, which is also nationalised property, then the Port of London Authority is exempted on the same principle. If he reads the passage, I think he will find that that was the sense in which I was using the word "nationalisation"; that it was because substantially the Port of London Authority's property was already in the hands of the community in a particular form that it should be treated as other land, like Crown lands and the property of local authorities, which are in the hands of the community. For that reason, I am afraid we cannot accept the Amendment.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: I hope the Solicitor-General will pardon me if I say that his argument was not altogether sound. The Port of London Authority and the ownership of the Port of London Authority and the funds employed therein is a different thing from that of Crown
property and the ownership of Crown property. Having disposed of that part of the argument, I should like to go on with a word or two in favour of the wharfingers' claim. I am speaking particularly of the wharfingers of London. It may be that there are others in other places similarly situated. The wharfingers of London are not in the same position as those concerned in a firm conducted by private enterprise. They can only conduct their business to some extent in competition, but more strictly in conjunction with the Port of London.
I hope the Solicitor-General will follow this, because I am not sure that he is fully aware of these facts. The wharfingers do business which the Port of London Authority does not want. At the same time they do a certain amount of the same business as that done by the Port of London Authority. That being so, the only way in which the wharfingers can serve the community is by a joint working agreement. This joint working agreement exists, and without it the wharfingers could not carry on their business, and the Port of London Authority would be put in a position of considerable difficulty. The Port of London Authority does not want these wharfingers to have to close down, and in these circumstances surely you cannot say that the wharfingers of the Port of London are in the same position as men who carry on business where they are not obliged to do it in conjunction with such a body as the Port of London Authority.
I am very disappointed with what the Solicitor-General said, because I have reason to suppose that the wharfingers received a certain amount of encouragement. I am not sure who made the representations to or communications with them, but they certainly got a certain amount of encouragement, and the impression was that they would receive favourable consideration. Apparently, the favourable consideration of this matter has not yet got as far as those who are in charge of this Bill. If the Solicitor-General had known the whole position of the wharfingers of London he could have put up a very different case in regard to this Amendment. He did not deal with the real claims of the wharfingers. Therefore, I think I am justified in saying that he really does not understand the peculiar
position in which they are placed, and their enforced action with the Port of London Authority in the carrying on of their work.
As I said when the matter was in Committee, the wharfingers in London and in other cities as well have received special treatment in matters of this kind in the past, because it was found to be necessary that they should be treated in that way. If the Solicitor-General has said his last word, I can only express my great regret that the Government have failed to realise that this was a case where in the interests of the community—it is no party matter whatever—this particular type of people, carrying on this particular business, ought to have been put in a position which would have guarded them against one of two alternatives; either being of less service, or giving a more expensive service; or else having to injure the community by going out of business altogether.

5.0 p.m.

Sir J. SANDEMAN ALLEN: I do not think that the shipping and trading part of the community will appreciate the explanation which the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor-General has given for not acceding to this reasonable request, which has been made on their behalf. It is not a request which is made merely by the owners of the property; it is a request by those who are interested in the trade and shipping of this country. The more one sees of this Bill, the more completely one ceases to look for consistency, except in one respect, and that is in its attack on private enterprise and private interests. That appears to be the kernel of the Bill. It is true that in one or two cases there have been compromises. Here is one case, and there are other cases, where trade and industry and shipping, which are in great need of care and attention by the Government, are hopelessly ignored. The line taken in regard to this matter is very disappointing, and it is one which will only shake more the confidence of the business men of the country in the intention behind this Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General will not answer again, and as the Chancellor of the Exchequer is silent, I think we may take it that the Government are offering a definite "No." I can, therefore, only protest, and I can
say that the country will realise the spirit which underlies this Bill.

Lord ERSKINE: I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon (Sir P. Cunliffe-Lister), when he put up what I thought was an extremely strong case for this Amendment, and I think the Solicitor-General really resorted to the old game of setting up ninepins to knock them down, because he made no real effort to answer the case which was put forward from this Front Bench. He said that the arguments of my right hon. Friend would have been all right if they had been bent towards exempting the Port of London Authority, but my right hon. Friend did not put that forward at all. He argued, I think rightly, that the wharfingers should be placed in the same position in regard to exemption as the Port of London Authority. The Solicitor-General said that those statutory bodies were exempted because they are statutory bodies and are not conducted for private profit. What about the railways, which are exempted? Does he say they are not conducted for private profit? I do not see any difference between them and the wharfingers. They both supply services to the traders of this country, and yet, merely because the wharfingers are private people, they are to be put in a worse position than the Port of London Authority.
I am very glad to see three or four hon. Members belonging to the Liberal party now in the House, because I regard this Amendment as a test. This particular part of the Bill is Socialism and nothing less. The wharfingers are to be penalised because they are private property owners, while the Port of London Authority is to escape because it is a public authority. There seems to be no valid reason why the wharfingers should not be exempted. Would a great deal of money be involved to the Government if this exemption were granted? Surely the land occupied by the wharfingers, compared with the whole of England, is extremely small. The Government have never once informed us, when anybody has asked for exemption, how much the exemption would cost. It may be that their excellent experts have not been able to calculate this extremely complicated tax. But I think we might be told how much
it would cost to exempt the wharfingers. Hon. Members of the Liberal party are always supposed to be very sincere in their individualistic feeling. I think the voting on this Amendment will show whether the Liberal party still maintain that view or whether they have adopted the inevitability of gradualness and are gradually going to sink into Socialism themselves. The Government have made no adequate reply whatever to the case put before them, and I do hope we shall press the question to a Division.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Without this exemption of the wharfingers, there is going to be an increase in the cost of living, because the wharves are part of the method of transport. The coast steamers keep the railway companies somewhat in check, and they are being harshly treated compared with the railways. The railways get the benefit of the De-rating Act. I was one of those who received the deputation from the coasting steamers complaining about derating and the extra burden placed upon them. Here is another burden to be placed upon them. I wonder we do not hear about it from the Transport Workers' and Dockers' Union. The Solicitor-General says that the wharfingers are not statutory bodies, and that the wharves are carried on for private profit. That is a disease which is rapidly disappearing in this country. There is no profit anywhere, and there is not much likely to be made on the docks. If this special taxation is pat on them, that private profit which causes so much objection to the Government is likely to disappear, and when it disappears how are the dockers and wharfingers to be kept alive? [An HON. MEMBER: "Protection."] If we had Protection we might have something done—[Interruption].

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Robert Young): Hon. Members who have interrupted will have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am not complaining of the interruptions. They are just as intelligent as interruptions usually are. I think this tax will be a great hardship on this industry, and will make it more difficult to carry it on and to employ labour. It will add still further to unemployment. It is a great hardship to the wharfingers as contrasted
with their competitors, who are being relieved of many burdens and who are being relieved under this Act. This burden on a well conducted non-profiteering part of our industry and transport will be a great injustice. I see no justice or logic, or what I might call legal convenience, in the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: We have been talking about the Port of London Authority. I hope some of the North Country Members will tell us what cost this tax will impose, if any—and I think it will impose a burden—on the already harassed coal industry which emanates from the Tyne. I am well aware that the Tyne Commission owns most of the dock equipment, but there are on the Tyne wharves, buildings, jetties and warehouses which are privately owned. This tax is going to add to the cost of the merchandise dealt with on the Tyne. Those wharves, piers' and jetties are ancillary to the organisation of those public utilities on the Tyne. I think hon. Members from that part ought to tell us how this impost is going to affect their constituents.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: It is rather hard that the Chancellor should give us so little of his time and should leave the House without giving a proper answer. We all know the advocacy or otherwise of the learned Solicitor-General in dealing with technical questions, but this is a matter of trade and employment, and it would affect the livelihood and welfare of a large number of people engaged in industry, not only in the wharves, but in the industries connected with them. One of the great industries of this country is the transhipment of goods, and anything that adds to the expense of handling the goods is of vital consequence to trade and industry generally. Hon. Members below the Gangway and some hon. Members on the other side, who at the present time are supporting an obsolete cause, maintain that shipping is bound up with free imports. Those who believe in that system ought to be certain before they put on the wharves and places of that kind any burden which may simply act as an indirect form of taxation. I am suspicious
that that is the real reason for this tax. The Government are not absolutely pure in this matter, and this may be a means of indirectly putting a revenue duty on imports. I will leave the question of imports at that stage lest I should stir up a mutiny against the Front Bench opposite.
Is there any particular reason, apart from any technical legal question, why a wharf or pier or jetty for the shipping and unshipping of merchandise should be taxed, while later in the Bill certain harbours and railways are let off tax? It is not any argument to say that the type of ownership is different. That is not an argument, but a quibble. The only question is the effect of the tax on trade; you cannot distinguish between two sets of individuals dealing with the same trade because they come under different heads. That is a quibble, and the House of Commons prefers to have solid arguments rather than quibbles which do duty for arguments in the law courts. Are there any fishing piers or wharves or jetties which will have to pay the duty unless this arrangement is brought in? I am connected as a Parliamentary representative with one or two harbours of that kind. I do not think that it will apply to them, and I hope that we shall have an answer from the Government that they are not in any way burdened under the Bill. I must speak for another section of the fishing industry in Cornwall, because the Members who represent it never attend. Will the Financial Secretary say how the small harbours in Devon and Cornwall come out under the Bill? Knowing this Government and the difficulty we have had in this Bill in looking after the interests of industry, I view their position with grave doubt, particularly in view of the obstinacy the Government has shown on this occasion in surrendering, not on a matter of principle, but on a matter of common sense.
This Amendment has been put down by hon. Members almost all of whom have knowledge of the various ports in the country. Is it not rather curious that in a Debate which affects employment so much, none of those Members who have always professed the need of a cure of unemployment have taken part? It is left, as usual, when something practical has to be done for the sake of
the workers, for the Conservative party to take their part and do the only thing that is possible. In all legislation of this kind the first thing a Government ought to ask is, "Will this particular Clause possibly stop any man from going on with his job?" If it does, it should not be put in the Bill. There is grave doubt whether this proposal may not have the effect of seriously handicapping industry, and I am seriously disturbed at the levity with which hon. Members opposite have treated this serious and important Amendment.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I am rather surprised at the action which has been taken by the Solicitor-General. I wonder whether he recognises the hardship that shipowners have to bear. There is practically no part of the world where a shipowner can trade and make a return on his money or even on his expenditure. It looks as though the proposal is that the Port of London is to be more handicapped in the future than it has even been in the past. What is the idea? Goods are shipped to London from abroad; they are placed in warehouses, taken out again, put into lighters, and shipped to various destinations. Every penny of the cost of that has to be most carefully scrutinised, because they have to compete with the stuff that comes to this country and is transhipped either round the coast or to Continental places. We hear so much lately with regard to the cost of living and with regard to the report of the Royal Commission on the Civil Service that is to come out and the hopeful anti cipations that have been roused——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER rose——

Sir F. HALL: I was getting a little wide of the question, but I was about to bring out the important effect on the cost of living of this additional charge on the articles that are handled in our ports. I cannot think that the Solicitor-General has considered to the full extent the effect of the imposition of an additional duty on these wharfingers. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman or other Members of the Government have looked into the question of the profits, and in many cases the losses, of wharfingers in this great city; and whether they have considered the
effect that this tax may eventually have on the dock industry? If we exclude from this country a considerable amount of freightage, which in the ordinary course of events would flow into this country, we shall have to take into consideration the additional cost that will be imposed in consequence of the tax, and that can only have the one effect of reducing the number of dock labourers. The tax does not touch only the actual owners of the wharves, but eventually all those in the industry.
I hope that the Government will consider the representations that have been put forward and will see whether they cannot give some reasonable consideration to the burdens which the wharfingers are bearing and which will affect not only the wharfingers, but the large number of lightermen and dock labourers who have to rely on the commerce of this great city for their living.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: This discussion has shown what an absurd and unreasonable tax this is, and no case has been made out why the Amendment should not be accepted. On all sides it is agreed that the work done by these wharfingers is exactly the same as is done by the Port of London Authority, and that the port of London could not carry on without the aid of the wharfingers, yet although the Port of London Authority are exempted from this tax any unfortunate wharfinger with a jetty or wharf has to pay. These wharfingers are a necessary cog in the machinery by which the port of London is operated. The hon. Member who intervened just now will agree that it would be difficult for some of the London, Midland and Scottish trains to get about the country if the flywheel or one of the cranks of the engine were removed. It would be no good to say that the engine was perfect as regards five-sixths or three-quarters of it, if a vital part, had been removed. In the same way, if we do anything to harm one part of the port of London the whole trade of the port will be affected. Only the other day another inconsistency was pointed out. A great luxury hotel with golf links, the Gleneagles Hotel, is to be exempted from the tax because it belongs to a railway company, whereas a small inn with a few acres of land will be liable to the tax.

Commander BELLAIRS: I have always understood that the most mischievous taxes in the world are those on transport and power. I have to make up my mind how to vote and I ask the Solicitor-General or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to explain why the Government are discriminating against the wharfingers and in favour of the Port of London Authority. It seems to me that a tax on the wharfingers will increase the cost both of our exports and of our imports, and therefore it will be more mischievous than any import tax could be, even in the view of the party opposite. Further, this will be a tax on labour, because the wharfingers, as far as I can make out, employ more labour than do the, Port of London Authority. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will occupy the time of the House for two or three minutes in telling us why this distinction has been drawn between the wharfingers and the Port of London Authority, or, if he cannot enlighten me, perhaps someone on the crowded benches behind him will tell me.

Mr. CAMPBELL: As one who has been for many years in business, and more especially in the shipping business, I consider that unless these wharves are exempted from the tax we shall be putting more difficulties in the way of trade and commerce than they already have to contend with. At is it, there are too many people unemployed, and we know that many firms are having to go slow or to close down altogether on account of lack of business. Why should the Port of London Authority be exempted because it has a charter and the other wharves be taxed? This taxation will increase overhead expenses, and thus jeopardise still further our opportunities of doing business overseas. As an office boy I went down to the dock district of London every day. I do not know why an hon. Member opposite should laugh. Perhaps he was never an office boy. I believe he was a school teacher, and in that position probably has a great deal to learn. I used to go down to these wharves every day, and I remember the amount of trade which used to be done there. Now 30 or 40 years after, many of these wharves are to a great extent idle because of the trading difficulties arising from competition abroad, and if this extra taxation is put on there will be still greater difficulties in the way of extending our commerce.

Mr. MacLAREN: Will the hon. Member make it clear how it is that we are suffering intense competition from abroad if the wharves are empty?

Mr. CAMPBELL: We are suffering very intense competition from abroad, and therefore many of our wharfingers are finding it difficult to get business, and this extra taxation will mean that our business with foreign countries will be still smaller than it is. I have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept it. He has been friendly disposed to most of our Amendments, although he has not accepted some of them, because, I suppose, what I might call his "bosses" will not allow him, but now that the cat is away the mice may play.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The condition of the House at this moment is a melancholy comment upon Guillotine procedure. I look opposite and see present five Members of the Socialist party. One is a Parliamentary Private Secretary, and one is the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), who no doubt is a host in himself, seeing that it is his special subject that we are discussing. Under this Guillotine procedure the House as a whole loses all interest in discussions, and it is extremely difficult to get any serious attention paid even to serious points. There is a serious point in this Amendment. We regard this taxation as being a burden on all industry, and we put down an Amendment to try to relieve all industry, but we were baffled in that attempt, and have to accept the decision of the majority; but the point in this particular Amendment is an entirely different one. I wish to direct the attention of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to it if he is going to reply. He has not, up to the present, given us very much light on this Bill, and I would suggest to him that here is an opportunity for him to make his maiden speech and to show that he has a mind of his own. Like other speakers on this side, I have no personal interest in or any particular knowledge of the special facilities which are provided by this industry, but what I want to know is on what principle the Government refuse to give relief to private wharfingers while giving it to undertakings which are in direct competition with them?
It is common knowledge that at nearly all our ports there are docks and wharves which are owned by local authorities, dock authorities or railway companies, all of which will be exempted from this tax, and that in competition with them are a certain number of private wharfingers, also rendering services to the community, engaged on the same work, who are to be taxed under the Bill. I had this very question before me in the time of the late Government. It was a question then of the definition of various kinds of hereditaments. In Section 5 of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act of 1928 there is a definition of freight transport hereditaments as follows:
A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly for dock purposes as part of a dock undertaking being an undertaking whereof a substantial proportion of the volume of business is concerned with the shipping and unshipping of merchandise not belonging to or intended for the use of the undertaking.
It will be seen that that is substantially the same as the description in the Amendment now before us. If I recollect aright the original form of the definition was not nearly so wide as that, and it was only when our attention was called to the new handicap which would be imposed upon these people if they were not given the same privileges as their direct competitors that we widened the definition to include them. Why should not the Government do the same here? There is no principle involved. There is no question of losing any large amount of revenue. The abstract principles of Socialism will not suffer. We should not be putting money into the pockets of these people. All that we should be doing would be to redress an inequality, in fact, an injustice which we shall be committing unless we accept this Amendment. We are not asking for a general exemption for private enterprise. We only want to redress an inequality.

Sir BASIL PETO: I wish to carry a little further the point brought out by the right hon. Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain). It is an extraordinary proposition on the part of the Government to exempt those who are carrying on the trade of wharfinger provided it is part of the business of a public
authority such as the Port of London Authority. In the Grand Committee which is considering the Government proposals for a London Passengers Transport Authority the Port of London Authority is constantly held up to us as the model to copy in constituting the new authority. Here we have a great Authority which has been set up to compete with private enterprise, and it is to be specially exempted from this tax, while the smaller people struggling to make a living, who have to compete with these authorities set up by charter or Act of Parliament, are to be exempt from this tax. It is not a question of a Government Department or land owned by the Crown being exempted. These authorities are half-way between private enterprises and Government Departments, and they are just a new form of carrying on industry which hon. Members opposite consider to be a stepping stone towards the complete nationalisation of industry.
That is why I object to this proposal. If there is any advantage to be given to anyone, surely it should be the private wharfinger as against the great corporations set up by this House. It is the little man who needs protection from the tax collector, and not the big man. That is a doctrine which has often been preached from the Liberal benches, and by hon. Members opposite, who never tire of telling us that it is the great, the powerful and rich who should bear the burden of taxation in this country. Here we have precisely the reverse, and the proposal of the Government is that the poor, struggling people, burdened with all the handicaps of special competition set up by the authority of this House, are to be the only people to be taxed by this proposal, which is obviously one to tax industry. The new principle which is now being enunciated by the Government is that it is only the little industry that has to bear the tax. It is only the poor man who is to be taxed under a Socialist Government, but the great corporations set up in the past, such as the Port of London Authority, and the great corporations which are being set up now, are to escape the tax, with the result that the burden of this tax will fall most heavily on the shoulders of those who are least able to bear it.
The new tendency is, not only that the Government want to socialise industry, whatever that may mean, but they want to leave the smallest residuum of the poor struggling people to bear all the burden of taxation, with which they are going to relieve the special organisations which are being set up. These proposals are a complete reversal of the canon of taxation that has hitherto been accepted by the Liberal party in countless speeches throughout the country and in this House.

and a canon of taxation which I thought was still believed in by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. This is really a new tax and a new method of carrying on industry by the Socialist Government, and under it the burdens of the poor will become heavier and heavier.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 190; Noes, 276.

Division No. 371.]
AYES.
[5.50 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
O'Connor, T. J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Flson, F. G. Clavering
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Viscountess
Ford, Sir P. J.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thahet)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Purbrick, R.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Ramsbotham, H.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gower, Sir Robert
Rathbone, Eleanor


Bird, Ernest Roy
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Remer, John R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vensittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Boyce, Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Bracken, B.
Hammersley, S. S.
Samuel, A. M, (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hanbury, C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Haslam, Henry C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Skelton, A. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smithers, Waldron


Butler, R. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm, W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Thompson, Luke


Chapman, Sir S.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Thomson, Sir F.


Christie, J. A.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Train, J.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Wells, Sydney R.


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macquisten, F. A.
Withers, Sir John James


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Womersley, W. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Millar, J. D.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J, (Richmond)
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor Warrender


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Muirhead, A. J.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife. West)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mills, J. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Montague, Frederick


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Money, Ralph


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Ammon, Charles George
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mort, D. L.


Arnott, John
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Muff, G.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Ayles, Walter
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Murnin, Hugh


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Haycock, A. W.
Nathan, Major H. L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Barnet, Alfred John
Hayes, John Henry
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Barr, James
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oldfield, J. R.


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Herriotts, J.
Palin, John Henry


Benson, G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Paling, Wilfrid


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T


Blinded, James
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hoffman, P. C
Perry, S. F.


Bowen, J. W.
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pole, Major D. G.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Isaacs, George
Potts, John S.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Price, M. P.


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pybus, Percy John


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Brothers, M.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richards, R.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Burgess, F. G.
Kenworthy Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cameron, A. G.
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Cape, Thomas
Lang, Gordon
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Chater, Daniel
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Clarke, J. S.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cluse, W. S.
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Scott, James


Cove, William G.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Scurr, John


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Daggar, Gorge
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Dallas, George
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Day, Harry
Lindley, Fred W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Logan, David Gilbert
Simmons, C. J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Longbottom, A. W.
Simon, E. D (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dukes, C.
Longden, F.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Duncan, Charles
Lunn, William
Sinkinson, George


Ede, James Chuter
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sitch, Charles H.


Edmunds, J. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Foot, Isaac
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McKinlay, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sorensen, R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McShane, John James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Stephen, Campbell


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Strauss, G. R.


Gill, T. H.
Manning, E. L.
Sullivan, J.


Gillett, George M.
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Glassey, A. E.
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Tillett, Ben


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Matters, L. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Toole, Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.




Townend, A. E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Vaughan, David
West, F. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Viant, S. P.
Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Walkden, A. G.
White, H. G.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Walker, J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wise, E. F.


Wallace, H. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Watkins, F. C.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)



Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, at the end, to insert the words:
(e) is owned by a body of persons carrying on as its principal business the provision of houses for the working classes and prohibited by its constitution or rules from issuing any share or loan capital with interest or dividend at a rate exceeding five per cent. per annum or such higher rate as may for the time being be prescribed by the Treasury as respects that body under the enactments relating to housing or town planning.
This Amendment was put down by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the result of a discussion which took place in Committee, when a number of Amendments dealing with this class of property were dealt with. On that occasion I promised that we would give an exemption to certain classes of associations, with a limit placed upon the amount that they could pay as interest on the money which they had either loaned or which formed their capital. I stated at that time that we were prepared to limit it to 5 per cent., but, when I came to look into the matter, it appeared that some of these societies had borrowed money from bodies like the Public Works Loans Board at higher percentages during the peak period, and, therefore, we have not limited the amount to 5 per cent., but have extended it to any percentage higher than five which might for the time being be prescribed by the Treasury in respect of the body concerned under an Act which related to housing or town planning. That is to say, if any of these bodies have borrowed money at higher rates, provided that they have done it in accordance with the provisions of a Housing or Town Planning Act, and the Treasury has prescribed the amount of interest which they can pay, they will fall within the exemption. The exemption is limited, as I stated in Committee, to associations whose principal business is the provision of houses for the working classes; that is to say, the main business of the body must be to provide houses for
the working classes. It may be that they might happen to have built some other house or two, and that would not necessarily stop them from coming within the Clause; but their main and principal business must be limited to providing houses for the working classes.

Sir D. HERBERT: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House exactly the legal meaning in this Clause of the expression. "working classes"?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: As the hon. Member knows, the expression "houses for the working classes" has been used in a number of Statutes before, and its meaning has never been laid down precisely. It is a question of fact which has to be determined in a particular case. In one case where there were special provisions as regards large flat dwellings in London—some of those which were known as Addison dwellings in Maida Vale—there was a long inquiry as to whether one of the blocks of flats was housing for the working classes, and the evidence had to be taken of the various people who resided there, and upon that the determination had to be arrived at as to whether they were properly called houses for the working classes. There is no exact legal definition. It is a term which has a significance which is understood by most people, but it is not precisely capable of legal definition.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does it include "black-coated workers"?

The SOLICITOR-CENERAL: The flats to which I was referring were largely occupied by professional women. The women were examined and cross-examined, and I think about half of them said that they belonged to the working classes, and about half said that they were not of the working classes. It is a question of fact which will have to be decided in any particular case. The other limitation is that there must be some prohibition, by constitution or
rules, from issuing any share or loan capital with interest or dividend at a rate exceeding 5 per cent., or such higher rate as may for the time being be prescribed by the Treasury with respect to that body.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: I understand that the dividend paid by these societies is always free of Income Tax. They pay Income Tax usually under Schedule A. May I ask if the 5 per cent. mentioned in this Amendment is 5 per cent. free of Income Tax, or including Income Tax?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If the dividend is limited to 5 per cent., it cannot be 5 per cent. free of Income Tax. That was definitely decided by the House of Lords in the Ashton Gas Company's case a long time ago. The gross payment which they make must not amount to more than 5 per cent. If they like to pay the Income Tax of their shareholders, they must deduct that; it must be less than 5 per cent. net. I do not think the hon. Member will find that in fact any society which is prohibited from paying more than 5 per cent. ever pays free of Income Tax now. If they do, they reduce the percentage accordingly.

Sir E. SHEPPERSON: Is it not rather different with building societies'? Their property is in land and buildings, and they pay automatically under Schedule A; and, having once paid under Schedule A, it is not necessary for them to pay any further Income Tax.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is rather a different point. It is not that they pay their dividends free of Income Tax, but that no Income Tax is payable. That would only apply to certain classes of societies, whose members are people with small incomes, and, of course, this provision does not deal with building societies, but with associations, companies and bodies such as, I think, are generally known as housing associations, for the particular purpose of providing houses for the working classes on a nonprofit-making basis. I think that this Amendment carries out fully the understanding which was come to in Committee, and on the strength of which Amendments were withdrawn.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Solicitor-General will remember that in Commit-
tee I raised the case of industrial dwellings companies which are not carried on as philanthropic institutions, but are carried on at a profit to their share holders. Many such companies, as I ventured to point out, will be very adversely affected if this proposed tax is carried into law and if they do not receive exemption from it. I have always thought it was a curious trait in the outlook of Socialists on life that they never seem to like any body of persons making a profit, and, as soon as they make a profit, or make their business pay, they are at once to have that profit taken away from them. The companies of which I am now speaking have done a splendid philanthropic work in this country, and at the same time have made a profit for their shareholders, many of whom are people of very moderate means. Such companies are the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, of which I my self am the chair man, the Metropolitan Industrial Dwellings Company——[Interruption.] An ounce of fact is worth a pound of theory, and I am giving chapter and verse for what I am going to say. I am not saying it for the sake of any personal advantage to myself, but am representing the facts of this company and of other companies, like the East End Dwellings Company and the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Company.
My own company has provided accommodation for about 20,000 working people throughout London. Some question was raised the other day because I said that we also provided accommodation for what are known as black-coated workers, but black-coated workers want houses to live in quite as much as those who are popularly described as the working classes, although as a matter of fact this company provides, as to between 80 and 90 per cent. of its undertaking, housing accommodation for the ordinary artisan class. The exemption which is on the Paper will not relieve us from the tax, because we are not prohibited by our constitution from issuing share or loan capital, and there are no Treasury regulations affecting our company. It may be asked, "Why should you make a profit out of the working people?" I may tell the House that the rents we charge are rather less than 4s. per room, and considerably less than that in the East End. I do not think that that can
be considered exorbitant. Flats are let at about 12s. a week for three rooms and a scullery. I (hope, however, that people will not apply for them, for there are no vacancies and there are very long waiting lists.
So far as our East End flats are concerned, this will not affect them very much, but we have a considerable number of flats in the West End of London, where we house about 5,000 people altogether. I told the Committee, but, as there are now more Members present, perhaps I may repeat it, that when we were building flats 40 or 50 years ago the first Duke of Westminster offered us seven sites in Mayfair on which to put up industrial dwellings. He thought it was not desirable that only rich people should have accommodation in Mayfair, but that workers, who, perhaps, had to work there or in the vicinity, should also be provided with workmen's dwellings in Mayfair. We put up seven blocks of flats there, between Grosvenor Square and Selfridge's.
I would put this to the House. If you clear those industrial dwellings off their sites and leave the sites vacant—one or two of them close to Selfridges, and the others close to Grosvenor Square—what is their value? It is immense—hundreds of thousands of pounds. Hon. Members know the value of the Dorchester House site, which was recently sold. The Solicitor-General smiles, but I venture to say that the Value of some of the sites of our dwellings may approximate to that. I must not, however, make too much of it, or it will be quoted against me, but, nevertheless, I say that they are very valuable sites, and may run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. In addition we have flats in the neighbourhood of Sloane Square and Victoria Street. We have 716 flats there, housing some 2,500 workers.
The principle of valuation under this Bill is that you take the particular building away, and assume that all the other mansions are left around it. If you cleared away the buildings of these workmen's dwellings, and left the palaces and luxury flats and expensive business premises still standing, the sites on which these dwellings are erected would be of a very high value indeed. We have also 259 flats in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square, housing approximately
1,000 people. Altogether my one company, in its flats in the West End, houses about 5,000 people. Even at 1d. in the £ a very large sum of money will be required to pay the tax on those flats. It would be quite impossible to do it. There are only two things that can be done. One is to reconstitute the flats, and put up the rent and let them to an entirely different class of person. I do not think the company will be affected. If we were only thinking of the finances of the company, it would not be a bad thing, although it is contrary to our principles to do it. I hope that if these 5,000 workers get notice to quit in order that these flats may be turned into luxury flats, they will remember that it is the action of a Socialist Government that has turned them into the streets and not a capitalist company. As I have said, the ground was given for the flats that we have in Mayfair by a duke at a very small rental. Well may the people who may be evicted, if this Bill goes through, cry out, "Long live the dukes: God save the land from the Socialists."

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I wish to make a few observations about the scope of the Amendment and the argument that it contains in support of the view that this new tax is a burden wherever it is imposed. We welcome every addition to the list of exemptions. We welcome the steady retreat of the Government as they are driven from point to point by bodies or associations which are able to press home their case. Every time the Government adds one exemption to those which have already been admitted, they are forced to confess that this tax is a burden from which certain classes of the community ought to be, and must be, exempt. They prove the case against themselves every time they yield to pressure exerted by powerful associations to be exempted from this new burden. Although the Government have yielded, rightly, to the pressure of associations which provide houses for the working classes, they are fettered and hemmed in by their own proposals, and they are unable to afford exemption, equally deserved and equally valuable, to private persons who have erected houses for the working classes on terms which do not even require the builders to earn money for the purpose of paying even so low a dividend as 5 per cent. Many of us know persons who,
from motives not in the least connected with gain, have built houses for the working classes in some of the most crowded and valuable portions of our cities.
The exemption which the Government has conferred upon societies does not apply to them. I call attention to that fact in order to point my observation that this tax is a burden, that those places upon which it falls will feel the burden, and that, when the Government give relief to private houses for the working classes, they are to that extent preventing the burden from falling on the working classes, but they are still leaving unmitigated the burden which will rest upon those members of the working classes for whom houses have been provided, not by associations or societies paying a dividend of 5 per cent., but by private persons. We resent the infliction of this burden upon the working classes. Hon. Members opposite may say, if they like, that we have an interest in resenting it. That is absolutely untrue. We resent what the Government is doing in placing a burden—for it is a burden, as they admit by their exemptions—upon the working classes and those who provide for them. These houses privately provided are generally let at rents much below those insisted upon by local authorities or by societies which earn dividends. I wish it were possible, before the Bill becomes law, for people interested in the provision of houses for the working classes to realise that, although the Government may yield to powerful associations which are able to press home their interests, they still intend to insist upon their plan of placing additional burdens upon houses for the working classes provided by persons who may have philanthropic or other reasons at the back of the provision of the houses upon which this burden will fall.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "classes," to insert the words:
or by an authorised association within the meaning of Section sixteen of the Town Planning Act, 1925, or by a body of persons developing a garden city or garden suburb under special Act of Parliament.
The actual phrasing of the Amendment is taken from the Town Planning Act, 1925, as being official and authoritative. The definition is as follows:
In this Section 'authorised association' means any society, company or body of persons approved by the Minister whose object include the promotion, formation or management of garden cities (including garden suburbs and garden villages) and the erection, improvement or management of buildings for the working classes and others, which does not trade for profit or whose constitution forbids the issue of any share or loan capital with interest or dividend exceeding the rate for the time being prescribed by the Treasury.
I believe there was some misapprehension on the part of one body which is extremely well known and popular with Members of the House, namely the Hampstead Garden Suburb, as to whether it was included. That was incorporated under a special Act of Parliament, and that is the meaning of the second part of my Amendment. My words are really the logical conclusion of all housing progress, because the Chancellor has admitted that he will exempt all these bodies that carry on as their principal business the provision of houses for the working classes, and, therefore, presumably he wants to help on this philanthropic work as, of course, all parties in the House do. But, if he imposes a Land Tax of this sort upon garden cities which are developing their business, because they do not confine their work to mere housing or merely to the working classes, and if he relieves the ordinary building of houses in straight roads, he is definitely encouraging the housing of people in straight roads in districts devoted to mean streets—that is what it comes to after a few years—instead of giving a chance to philanthropic bodies to develop housing on modern lines.
This is no fanciful picture. I have been associated with these developments and can speak quite clearly as to the actual facts. The actual facts with regard to Letchworth and Welwyn are known to the Chancellor. He has had a deputation before him and has had the facts put before him clearly and definitely. This new idea of housing was started by the late Sir Ebenezer Howard in 1899, and up to 1918, with one exception, he and others who put their money into that business had not received any dividend at all. In 1918 they started to pay a small dividend. Now they are paying 5 per cent. and by degrees are helping to pay off the arrears, but it will be many years before they pay them off. It is very difficult at present to
collect the money that has been put into this business and which has received very little return. The actual incidence of the ordinary pressure of the present time is such that every extra penny counts. It has to fall on someone, and it falls on the business. The essence of the Garden City business is that the whole of the return—one hardly likes to call it profit—is devoted to the interest of the inhabitants themselves. It all goes into the further development of the business, and an extra tax means that there is so much less progress and less development. It is the people of the place themselves on whom this falls. It means less development and less housing progress. It certainly means a definite retardation of this development.
It seems to be still more illogical in the case of Welwyn Garden City. Use was made there of a Clause introduced into successive Acts of Parliament from 1922 onwards enabling the State, through the Public Works Loans Board, to come to the assistance of these organisations and to help them with loans. In the case of the Welwyn Garden City, something like two-thirds of its capital had been raised in advance by the Public Works Loans Board and the rest from private sources. Now the private sources are dried up and we have a chance of having a further loan from the Public Works Loans Board, cut down to the minimum, for development. But even so, the interest on the loan cannot be repaid from the business. Therefore, although we are improving our financial position every year, the extra tax, which will probably amount to £2,000 a year, has to be met by fresh borrowing. The tax in this case will entail an extra application to borrow money from the Public Works Loans Board. It will mean a tremendous hardship, as everyone will realise, to organisations carrying on this work. It is almost heartrending to see them carrying on year after year with the greatest difficulty, but still keeping their heads above water and still going on with developments. It will mean the prospect of having an annual burden of £2,000 in Welwyn and £4,000 in Letch-worth.
It is not only our own body which is interested in this matter. All the bodies concerned with the preservation of the countryside went on a deputation to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer especially to raise this point. The deputation consisted of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Town Planning Institute, the National Housing and Town Planning Council, the Chartered Surveyors' Institute, the Garden Cities and Town Planning Association, the National Trust, the Metropolitan Public Gardens' Association, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the National Playing Fields' Association, and the Boy Scouts' Association. I do not think that anyone can imagine a more complete set of bodies for the preservation of the countryside in the interests of the people than that combination. They have made common cause, and intend to stand together. They definitely stated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, in its present form, the tax must tend to force into the market for building purposes much land which would better serve the public welfare by remaining open land. It will tend to promote the erection on urban lands of the largest possible number of buildings, thus increasing congestion and mitigating against the essential and cardinal features of the movement started by the late Sir Ebenezer Howard. Anyone who has read Sir Ebenezer Howard's book cannot help being appalled at the proposals of the tax. They are almost inconceivable. Even in the origin of the garden city movement, Sir Ebenezer Howard definitely laid it down that the idea was that the land should belong to the people and that the profits should go to the people, and yet, next year, the Government are going to levy a further tax upon such movements.
I imagine that the reason why the Government have not included my proposal in their proposed exemption is, that it is not entirely a question of housing for the working classes. I was puzzled by the reply of the learned Solicitor-General to the speech of my hon. Friend who asked whether he included the black-coated workers. He said, "Yes." They are all black-coated workers in Welwyn Garden City. They do not wear corduroys and dungarees. Everyone has to work there, man, woman and child. Some of them work locally, and others have to come to London. I think that some of them wear
coloured and checked coats. Do the Socialist party limit themselves to those who wear black coats? If so, I am afraid that one hon. Member on the opposite side of the House will not be included, although I observe that the hon. Member is rather less lightly attired to-day than he was earlier in the week.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I am the only person on this side who is entitled to wear that coloured dress.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I believe that the real difficulty is to be found in the difference between garden cities and ordinary housing developments. Garden cities include industries, and because they include industries the Government are frightened to give them relief from taxation. What is the reason for making the distinction between garden cities and towns on that "core? It is the idea that industries in the towns will feel that they are being unfairly dealt with if they have to pay Land Tax and the industries in the garden cities have not to do so. The establishment of industries in garden cities is all in favour of the general housing movement, and, "surely, the Government do not desire to give an extra favour to the industries in the towns. They should encourage the idea of industries moving out of the towns and taking the people with them. The problem since Charles Kingsley's days has been how to get people out of London and to establish them, conveniently and economically, in the country. There can be no adequate reason for refusing to give this exemption. If it is refused, the tax will handicap most unfairly and critically, if not ruinously, a movement and a set of enterprises and experiments which are needed more than anything else in housing development. The Government will be throwing upon the garden city movement a tremendous burden which that movement may not be able to support, and they will show themselves the greatest enemies of the garden city movement instead of being its helpers and supporters, as I am sure they would wish to be.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
The House is well aware that my hon. and gallant Friend has devoted a con-
siderable part of his life in furthering the garden city movement, and that there is no one who speaks with greater authority on the subject. I would remind the learned Solicitor-General that in the Debate yesterday many of us pointed out that the garden city movement would be very severely hit because that was the movement which, in order to beautify property, had built many circular roads. I think that he was very much impressed by the arguments from these benches. If the Government accept the Amendment as far as the garden city movement is concerned they will get over many of the difficulties caused by the refusal of the hon. and learned Gentleman to accept our Amendment yesterday. I hope that, he may be able to secure the acquiescence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury—I do not think that he need get the permission of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren)—in accepting the Amendment. The Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman says:
is owned by a body of persons carrying on as its principal business the provision of houses for the working classes.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir T. Inskip) raised the point of the private individual who builds houses and very often only receives a rent of considerably less than 5 per cent., and said that he would not benefit under the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would ask the learned Solicitor-General whether a private individual could not get the benefit by forming himself into a limited liability company? I rather imagine that that might meet the point. I am sorry that the Rules of Order will prevent us from having an explanation from the hon. Gentleman, who has just left the House. He is the only person entitled to wear a certain dress, and I can only infer from what he has said that the privilege was conferred upon him by Mr. Gandhi. I think that the Solicitor-General will realise that the argument with regard to a valuer not being able to distinguish between one house and another owing to road frontage, would entirely disappear under the Amendment in regard to garden cities. I am sure that he does not wish to discourage the erection of this new kind of city in the country, and I hope
that we shall have the support of hon. Members opposite in favour of this most reasonable Amendment.

Mr. E. D. SIMON: It is not necessary for me to say many words in support of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), who is such an authority upon, and has done so much work in, the garden city movement. I am sure that hon. Members on these benches are just as anxious to encourage the development of garden cities as hon. Members in any other part of the House. The Bill as it stands does not, unfortunately, reflect that anxiety. I think that I am correct in saying that all land owned by local authorities is exempt under the Bill. As an example, land owned at Welwyn is not exempt, but land owned by the London County Council at Becontree is exempt. I have great admiration for the work of the London County Council in housing, but no one would pretend that their lay-out at Becontree compares with the pioneer work done under the inspiration of Sir Ebenezer Howard at Welwyn. Welwyn is a great invention, a real step in progress for the better building of cities. It is the kind of service which private enterprise, under the inspiration of geniuses like Sir Ebenezer Howard, sometimes does and does very much better than local authorities. It is certainly done very much better in the particular cases of Letchworth and Welwyn, and, in these circumstances, I cannot believe that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite really want to do anything to delay the development of Welwyn and other similar towns.
I confess that during the last two years I have felt that the Government have not shown that enthusiasm in helping forward the garden city movement which we hoped they would show when they came into office. They lent money from the Public Works Loans Board in rather a grudging spirit, and only after the very highest form of security had been obtained. They have not done as much in that direction as one might have expected. Surely the Government are not going to add to the burden on these garden cities while exempting the developments of municipalities. I cannot think that there is any such intention,
and I sincerely hope that Welwyn Garden City and similar undertakings will be exempted either by this Amendment or by some other form of words more suitable for the purpose.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: On the last occasion when I addressed an appeal to the Solicitor-General and the Financial Secretary, they did not deign to give me any answer, although I thought I put a point which had not been submitted before. It may be that the Financial Secretary had no permission to speak, or that he had no discretion of his own. I hope that the Solicitor-General has a discretion and will exercise it in favour of the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend. The hon. Member for Withington (Mr. Simon), who is well known as an authority on the subject of housing, has added his plea to that of my hon. and gallant Friend. The case of garden cities comes very close to the Amendment put down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to exempt from the operation of the tax bodies of persons who are engaged in providing dwellings for the working classes, and making that their principal business. They are to be limited as to the dividends they can pay. This also applies to garden cities.
What is the distinction between the work done by the Garden Cities Association and those bodies of persons who are covered by the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The distinction is simple. The Garden Cities Association not only provide dwellings for the working classes, but also provide the means of occupation for working classes when they occupy the dwellings. Is that what the Government quarrel with? Do they wish to discourage people from making arrangements which will enable the working classes in such places as Letchworth and Welwyn to find occupation in the neighbourhood in which they live? Surely that is not the reason put forward for the exceptional treatment of these associations. Is the Solicitor-General going to say that they ought not to provide houses for other kinds of people who are not of the working class? Surely these people who are provided for in other houses are assisting to pay the rates for the working classes, and I cannot imagine that the Solicitor-General objects to garden cities being
designed on a plan which brings all classes of the community into such close contact.
Do the Government desire to encourage garden cities or not? Do they recognise that if we could only get a multiplication of garden cities we should go a long way towards solving the difficult problem confronting us in the congested areas of our large towns? If they recognise the value of garden cities in this respect, why are they going to put a new burden upon them which is going to reduce materially the value of their property and make it more difficult for them to raise fresh capital? Anyone who has followed the development of garden cities knows that they have been hampered by the difficulty of raising the large amount of capital that is required to develop them economically and rapidly, and to put an additional burden upon them now makes it even more difficult for them to raise capital in order to expand. It seems to be an anti-social proceeding on the part of the Government. I hope the Solicitor-General will give a favourable reply.

Mr. COVE: I want to say a few words on this Amendment because I happen to live in Welwyn Garden City. My general impression is that the Welwyn Garden City Company has always been exceedingly well treated by the Treasury. As I understand it, the Welwyn Garden City Company has had loan upon loan on favourable terms; they have had subsidies; and it is by no means a public body. The whole of that property which has been built by subsidies from the Government, by loans, will, I understand, revert to private ownership and control, not with dividends limited by an Act of Parliament, but with profits that are not limited, because of the network of subsidiary companies which exist in Welwyn Garden City.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: The Government have never given a penny subsidy to Welwyn Garden City.

Mr. COVE: On the housing side they have had the usual subsidies—[Interruption]—and the whole of the property reverts back to private ownership, to Welwyn Garden City, Limited. What else is there to say about this? In addition to the privileges which have been enjoyed
by Welwyn Garden City Company as far as finances are concerned, it exercises a monopoly, a complete and effective monopoly, in Welwyn Garden City. It is a monopoly to this extent that no trader can come in.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Oh, yes, private traders are coming in now.

Mr. COVE: The hon. and gallant Member knows that what I am saying is perfectly true. The Welwyn Garden City Company exercises a monopoly to the extent that no one else can compete, although within the last few months they have allowed one or two exceptions. You have the Welwyn Stores, Limited, the Welwyn Transport Company, Limited, the Welwyn Gravel Works, Limited, and a whole list of subsidiary companies. They exercise complete monopoly and can get the usual returns on the investments made. That is the great and fundamental difference between the position of Welwyn Garden City, Limited, and an ordinary municipal body. There is not an atom of public control in Welwyn Garden City. The citizens have no control. I have no voice whatever in the control of Welwyn Garden City, nor have the general body of citizens. The fact of the matter is that Welwyn Garden City has been extremely well treated, and it is asking too much to exempt it. If it is true that factories will be exempt, then we have in Welwyn Garden City the Shredded Wheat Factory, paying immense profits, and I do not see why the Shredded Wheat Company should come within the exemptions. £2,000 a year will not break the Welwyn Garden City Company. The Public Works Loans Board have come to their aid over and over again. The next time they come I hope that the Government will see that we get the co-operative stores for which we have been asking for a long time. We have been absolutely refused, in spite of the fact that we have 300 to 400 co-operators in Welwyn Garden City. We cannot get a co-operative stores because the monopoly is so complete. I think the Government are doing the right thing.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: At any rate, there is one thing that the Welwyn Garden City Company cannot do; it has
not the power to exclude an undesirable citizen. The attack that has been made on it is quite inconsistent. We have heard that it is always getting grants and subsidies. In that case it is evidently not making much profit, otherwise it would not require all these subsidies. Evidently it is having a struggle. I submit that in the Welwyn Garden City movement we have the germ of the form of our future social structure, and no person can be against this Amendment except a body like the London Transport Company. There is nothing harder than for a working man to have to spend 20 to 30 minutes in a tube or omnibus going to or from his work. If we want to see domestic happiness increased, we must make it possible that people who have to work in warehouses and factories are able to get home to a mid-day meal. One of the main reasons for the struggle at the present time is that people with small wages have to go to some cheap restaurant and get something which is relatively expensive.
On the Continent things are managed much better. A man gets an interval of two hours and goes home to his meal. It means really far less toil for the head of the house—I mean the wife—and far greater happiness and economy, and domestic harmony. Our system is to make the people live outside and pay a heavy charge for a season ticket, and generally as soon as an area is built up, the season ticket rate rises. I would like to see the garden city movement encouraged by this Finance Bill, even factories like the Shredded Wheat Factory at Welwyn Garden City, because they would then be able to carry on with less overhead charges, and we should not see the huge masses of population crowded together in solid masses. This is a most beneficent Amendment, and if the Government are really anxious for the housing and better working conditions of the people of the country, they will accept it.

7.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Everyone is extremely sympathetic towards the case of garden cities, and the object of the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to which reference has been made by the right hon. Member for
Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), is to carry out the sense of the argument put before the Committee when it was considering this matter; and that was that, owing to the known shortage of working class houses at the present time, nothing should be put in the way of building working class houses. That was the line upon which the argument proceeded. It was in order to accomplish that end that this Amendment was put down.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Will the Solicitor-General remember that the question was particularly raised on a previous occasion, and on that particular occasion his last words were that he would take that into consideration?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The hon. and gallant Member is quite right: the matter was raised. The statement by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones), who raised it, was that under the terms I stated, which were narrower, Letchworth, in which he was interested, would be covered. The object of the present Amendment is in order to include what are known as garden cities. At the present moment, as I understand, the position of those garden cities consists of several different types of buildings. They have houses for the working classes, other types of houses, industrial buildings and factories. In some of them—I do not know if it is so in all of them—there is a subsidiary company dealing with industrial buildings housing of the working classes and so on. Those subsidiary companies dealing with the housing of the working classes would be exempt under this provision if there is some rule limiting the amount of interest they pay on their share capital. If there is no limit, there is nothing to prevent a rule being made and their interest being regulated, in which event they would fall within the ambit of this provision.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Surely the Solicitor-General does not mean that the subsidiary companies of a garden city would be included under this Amendment, which included the management of garden cities and so on? I do not think the subsidiaries would be included

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I was not saying that, I did not make it clear
to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. What I did say was that, if there is a subsidiary dealing with working class houses and limiting its dividends, it would be included. While I am on the point of working class houses, may I also deal with the question of industrial dwellings and of industrial dwellings companies? I have got particulars of the finance of only one of them, the Improved Industrial Dwellings Company, which is an extremely prosperous company paying the equivalent of 16 per cent. on the original capital, which was doubled by an increase of capital some years ago. In addition to that, they have accumulated a sum in reserve equal to the whole of that capital.

Mr. MAITLAND: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say what the proportion of the capital of this association is to the total funds of the association? The House should have some information as to the relation between the capital and the total funds.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am afraid I have not got full details. All I can say is that the capital is just about £1,000,000, of which about £500,000 was subscribed originally or at different times, and about £400,000 of which was capitalised reserves, and that the reserves now are about £500,000.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is a very prosperous concern.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I quite agree.

Sir W. DAVISON: In stating the case the other day, I said that the directors and the founder of the company, Sir Sydney Waterlow, always believed in philanthropy and 5 per cent. If they can do good work and house 20,000 people, and at the same time pay 5 or 6 per cent., surely it is better than people getting houses on the dole.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am not complaining about the prosperity of the company. All I am pointing out is that they do not come within the Amendment proposed, because they are not limited in their dividend. But, if they desire to come within the Amendment, they can always do it by making a rule limiting the
amount they pay in dividend. There is no hardship in that. They can get out of the Land Tax by limiting their dividends either to the 5 per cent. or the higher sum for the time being prescribed by the Treasury. That is a satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman in regard to his particular set of companies. Everybody will agree that, clearly, you could not put any unlimited companies in this Amendment, because you would bring in every commercial company. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The House will appreciate that we are not discussing the exemption of every company. We are discussing whether there should be included, in addition to those already there, several other bodies such as garden cities and industrial dwellings, and I was answering the point about industrial dwellings. The difficulty as regards garden cities is that they do cover industrial dwellings as well as others. Concessions, once they are given, necessarily lead to a demand to go one step further. It is always the great difficulty in which anybody finds himself who is good-natured enough to make a concession when pressed from the other side. [Interruption.] If hon. Members object to the words "good-natured," I will use the words "foolish enough." The hon. Member whom I am particularly addressing will appreciate that, having gone as far as we have gone—which is a very long way—in exempting this class of associations, we feel we cannot go to the extent of exempting those bodies which deal in industrial buildings, for the reasons he has already stated in his speech to the House. Much though we sympathise with the garden city movement, we do not feel we should be justified, as regards their industrial sites, in giving this special exemption to industrial sites in garden cities as against industrial sites in other places.

Mr. PHILIP OLIVER: The sympathy of the Government is not of much avail if they are going to burden us with taxes. The sympathy we desire is more practical sympathy than the speeches we have heard from the front and back benches opposite in this Debate. I am a little surprised at the attitude they have taken. I understand that the suggestion is that Letchworth and Welwyn should establish subsidiary companies to be known as the Letchworth and Welwyn Working Class
Houses Companies, which would house the working classes in Welwyn and Letch-worth, while the rest of the development of the estates could be carried on by other companies. That is a strange doctrine to be heard from any party in these days, because the centre of the garden city movement is that all classes should, as far as possible, live together in the garden cities. The East End and the West End should live together as in the mediaeval days when it led to a social conscience in the villages and towns. The curse of the Industrial Revolution is that it has separated them not only in their habits and their desires but in their habitations. You have the slum, from which, we have heard, these pests creep out, with its long dank streets, then the semi-detached villa, and the respectable individuals who are given a carriage drive and rhododendrons. The garden city is against all that, and the desire is to see all classes dwell together, and not separated by subsidiary companies.

Mr. COVE: But there are these separations in garden cities, too. There is a distinct cleavage. We have in Welwyn Garden City an area where it is recognised are the manual labourers; on the other side there is the West End. There is a distinct and complete cleavage.

Mr. OLIVER: In so far as that is so, Welwyn has there sinned against the idea. I am not pleading for Letchworth, or Welwyn or Hampstead, but for the whole idea, which one hopes will develop. It is of importance that we should try to link up the Finance Bill with the other Bill which the House is considering in Committee—the Town and Country Planning Bill. We have heard from the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who lives in a garden city and thinks little of it, that there is not much to be said for garden cities. Yet the Government in the Town and Country Planning Bill are taking extraordinary powers, compulsory powers to purchase land to hand it over to associations for the formation of garden cities and villages. They are only taking those powers because they realise that, whatever the Solicitor-General may think, whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer may think, and whatever the hon. Member for Aberavon may think, this is a great movement. They are taking these compulsory powers to purchase land and vest it in these associations in order that
these cities may be created. Why, having taken these powers, are you going to detract from them? Either you are in favour of garden cities or against them. If you are in favour of them, I suggest that you must give garden cities the same exemption as that already given to other housing associations.

Mr. DALLAS: I sympathise with the development of garden cities but I am afraid that hon. Members opposite who have been talking about them, with the exception perhaps of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), do not know anything about the practical operation of the movement. Otherwise there would not be a single supporter on that side for exemption in this case. I know this land very well. I lived there for nearly 10 years. I saw the beginning of it. I was one of the first 200 inhabitants of the garden city and took an active part in public life there for a number of years. It was an active part in demanding public control, and we had to fight every inch of the way in getting control, for the citizens and the inhabitants of the garden city, over the town in which they lived. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which garden city?"] I refer to Welwyn and let me show hon. Members how things worked out there. When it was finally made into an urban district, the clerk to the urban district council was the secretary to the company. The surveyor to the council was the chief engineer of the company. The overseer of rates was the accountant of the company, and this thing went on for some time, until we finally compelled some slight alteration.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the hon. Member suggest that there was any nepotism or anything disgraceful about this, when the whole of the engineering work, the surveying work, and the clerical work had previously been conducted by the company. When exactly the same work was handed over to the district council, was it not economical that the same people should be employed for a period of years at any rate, instead of duplicating offices?

Mr. DALLAS: I am not making any suggestion of that kind, but let me show how;t worked out. The interests of a private company at some time or other must conflict with the public interest.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will show hon. Members why. The engineer who made the roads for the private company became the surveyor to the council. As surveyor to the council he had to certify that the roads made by the private company were fit and proper roads to be taken over by the public authority and paid for by the public. After they had been taken over, within six months in some instances, the roads had to be widened, and altered at the expense of the ratepayers and the public. This land was bought at £30 an acre, on the average. The hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans will not deny the fact, that it is let to-day, including roads and sewers, at £2,000 an acre.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Only little spots.

Mr. DALLAS: Let me give another instance and I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will agree that this is right. A number of subsidiary companies were formed. A subsidiary company borrowed £300,000 from the Public Works Loans Commissioners. It got a subsidy for building houses, and if any hon. Member or any member of the general public wanted to live in any of these houses at that particular time, they had to deposit £50 and sign an agreement that they would reside there for three years, and they would get the £50 on leaving. The loan, the subsidy, and the deposit by the tenant, covered the total cost of the house. The capital of this private company was £120, and the whole of the £300,000 worth of property belongs to these people with a capital of £120 who have borrowed from the public and the nation.

Sir D. HERBERT: For what charge?

Mr. DALLAS: I say that if ever there was a case for the taxation of land values—and I advocated it all the years when I was living there—it is the garden city movement. There are many other points arising out of this Amendment which are not quite germane to this particular argument but at any rate, on the fundamental question of the taxation of land values, I hold that this is a fit and proper case for the application of the tax.

Sir D. HERBERT: This Debate has been remarkable for the fact that we
have had two speeches from the back benches behind the Government, and illuminating speeches they have been. One of them at any rate has shown how absolutely ignorant are some hon. Members opposite of the meaning and effect of the Bill and the Clause with which we are dealing. I am not making that statement carelessly. I am going to prove it. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) threw up his hands in horror when he referred to the fact that there was a shredded wheat factory run by private enterprise which was going to benefit if this Amendment were carried, and the Solicitor-General seemed almost to be following the same argument, particularly in the closing part of his speech, when he referred to industrial factories within the borders of these garden cities. Let me explain to the hon. Member for Aberavon who knows so much about this place, that if he will look into the Bill and learn a little more about its provisions, he will see that this Clause as amended by our proposal would exempt from the tax a land unit owned by a certain body. Perhaps he can tell me, with his knowledge of the district, if this shredded wheat factory is owned by the particular body which we are trying to exempt. Apparently the hon. Gentleman does not know.

Mr. DALLAS: No land can be bought outright from the company. It is all on lease. You can get a long lease of 999 years but the houses which people buy are not freehold.

Sir D. HERBERT: Then do I understand that the factory is held on a long lease by the shredded wheat company? [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on with your speech!"] Let me assume that it is held by this industrial profit-making private enterprise company under a long lease of 999 years. Then it will not be exempted under the Amendment and that is why I say that hon. Members who talk in the way I have indicated just now, talk nonsense. It is an example of the kind of support which this Bill gets from people who do not in the least understand what it means. I only regret that the Solicitor-General should not have dealt with that point instead of apparently trying to trade upon these mis-statements by referring to the position of industrial buildings within the borders of garden
cities. I know something about Welwyn Garden City although I have not lived there, and I have no hesitation in saying to the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Dallas) that in his impressions as to the general work and the general method of forming and carrying on the Welwyn Garden City, he is just about as much at sea as the other hon. Member opposite is in his understanding of this particular Clause. At any rate, the Welwyn Garden City has done this much. As it was developing into an administrative unit it gave the hon. Member an opportunity of practising his particular method of taking part in public affairs.
That is one of the things for which the garden city movement may claim some credit. It has tried to get all classes, including those holding the views of the hon. Member opposite, into the country out of the great cities, so that they might all work together. Let the hon. Member understand this—that no one, up to the present, has made any personal profit out of the Welwyn Garden City and no one is likely to do so in his lifetime or in mine. When he talks about a subsidiary company with a capital of £100 owning property worth £300,000 I would only ask him whether he thinks he could manage to live upon it if he owned that property. He does not give us all the facts. He does not tell us what the company has to pay, what its income is, and what is the margin of income over expenditure. I think if he went into the concerns of the Welwyn Garden City he would find that one could not talk greater nonsense than to say that any subsidiary company with a capital of £100 had property of that value, except in so far as a company of that kind can be the nominal holder of property the actual value of which is produced by borrowed money on which interest has to be paid.

Mr. DALLAS: The interest and the loan charges are all paid out of the rents paid by the tenants who live there. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course."] As far as I am concerned I wish to make it quite clear that I regard the ideal of the garden city as a splendid one, and I am only complaining of its operation in this particular instance.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am much obliged to the hon. Member. I think there is
proof for what I said to him just now that if he owned this subsidiary company he would not be able to live upon it. If he owned this subsidiary company and nothing else, he would be a good deal worse off than he is with his £400 a year as a Member of Parliament; and if the hon. Member knows that to be so then it is grossly misleading the House to talk about these concerns as examples of greedy private enterprise, because a company with a capital such as he has described owns property worth thousands. We have this satisfaction at any rate from the discussion of this Amendment—we now know the type of support which there is for this Bill.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I with the permission of the House make one statement with regard to something which the hon. Member for Watford (Sir D. Herbert) has said as regards the ownership of industrial property? I am sure that he does not wish the House to get the impression from his speech that the tax will not be to a great extent relieved if this Amendment is passed upon all industrial property in Welwyn, because he knows that there is a provision by which the owner if it is an industrial concern passes back the tax on the ground rent and that means that the greater part of the tax would ordinarily be exempted under this provision; and where the owner of the industrial property has less than a 50 years lease, then the whole of the tax will be exempted because in the sense of the Bill the ownership will be in the garden city itself.

Sir D. HERBERT: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I quite admit that, but it is no answer whatever. If somebody who has a factory in Southwark gets rid of that factory and builds another factory, not in a garden city, but, let us say, on the outskirts of Watford in my division, he might pay a good deal less. It would cost him less, because it is cheaper to go to a garden city, and we want to encourage him to do it. The hon. and learned Gentleman will remember what he told me the other day in the discussion on this Clause with regard to exemptions. He will understand that what I have said is perfectly true, that if this Amendment be carried, the effect on the Bill as amended, will be only to
exempt a unit which is owned by this particular type of association, and it will not exempt a unit which is owned by an industrial concern carried on for profit. I hear the learned Solicitor-General say, "Will it!" I can only say that if that is so, the explanation he gave me as to the general effect——

Mr. COVE: You do not know the Bill now!

Sir D. HERBERT: If the hon. Member will listen instead of jeering, he will see that I am trying to explain that I do know the Bill, although I admit that

it is sometimes difficult to understand it. What I do not know, is the Solicitor-General's interpretation of it. If the interpretation which he gave to me on the discussion of this Clause in the Committee stage is correct, what he says now is not correct. I still maintain that, under this Clause, as it is proposed to be amended, no benefit will be given to any industrial concern.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 265.

Division No. 372.]
AYES.
[7.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Colfox, Major William Philip
Harris, Percy A.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Colman, N. C. D.
Hartington, Marquess of


Albery, Irving James
Calville, Major D. J.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Haslam, Henry C.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Asks, Sir Robert
Cowan, D. M.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cranborne, Viscount
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Astor, Viscountess
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Croom-Johnson. R. P.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godlrey
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Balniel, Lord
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hurd, Percy A.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Iveagh, Countess of


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Dixey, A. C.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Blinded, James
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George S. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Boyce, Leslie
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Bracken, B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Briscoe, Richard George
Ferguson, Sir John
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Fermoy, Lord
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fielden, E. B.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Flson, F. G. Clavering
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Buchan, John
Ford, Sir P. J.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Frece, Sir Walter de
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Butler, R. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lymington, Viscount


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Campbell, E. T.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Millar, J. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Chapman, Sir S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Christie, J. A.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hammersley, S. S.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hanbury, C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Muirhead, A. J.


Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Salmon, Major I.
Thompson, Luke


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Thomson, Sir F.


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


O'Connor, T. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Train, J.


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Savery, S. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


O'Neill, Sir H.
Scott, James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Penny, Sir George
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Perkins, W. R. D.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Skelton, A. N.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Pilditch, Sir Philip
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney R.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Purbrick, R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Ramsbotham, H.
Smithers, Waldron
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Rathbone, Eleanor
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Withers, Sir John James


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Remer, John R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)



Ross, Ronald D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. P.
Captain Wallace and Major the Marquess of Titchfield


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Day, Harry
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dukes, C.
Jones, Llewellyn., F.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Duncan, Charles
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Ede, James Chuter
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Alpass, J. H.
Edmunds, J. E.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Angell, Sir Norman
Egan, W. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Arnott, John
Foot, Isaac
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kirkwood, D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lang, Gordon


Barnes, Alfred John
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Barr, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gill, T. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gillett, George M.
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Glassey, A. E
Lawrence, Susan


Benson, G.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gould, F.
Lawson, John James


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Bowen, J. W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Leach, W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gray, Milner
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lees, J.


Bromfield, William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Leonard, W.


Bromley, J.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brooke, W.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lindley, Fred W.


Brothers, M.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Logan, David Gilbert


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Longbottom, A. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lunn, William


Buchanan, G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Burgess, F. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
McElwee, A.


Cameron, A. G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McEntee, V. L.


Cape, Thomas
Haycock, A. W.
McKinlay, A.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayday, Arthur
MacLaren, Andrew


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McShane, John James


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thamptoh)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Manning, E. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Herriotts, J.
Mansfield, W.


Compton, Joseph
Hicks, Ernest George
March, S


Cove, William G.
Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Marcus, M.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Markham, S. F.


Daggar, George
Hoffman, P. C.
Marley, J.


Dallas, George
Hollins, A.
Marshall, Fred


Dalton, Hugh
Hopkin, Daniel
Mathers, George


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Matters, L. W.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Isaacs, George
Maxton, James




Messer, Fred
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Middleton, G.
Romeril, H. G.
Tillett, Ben


Mills, J. E.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Milner, Major J.
Rowson, Guy
Toole, Joseph


Montague, Frederick
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Tout, W. J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Townend, A. E.


Morley, Ralph
Sanders, W. S.
Vaughan, David


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sandham, E
Viant, S. P.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Walkden, A. G.


Mort, D. L.
Scurr, John
Walker, J.


Muff, G.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wallace, H. W.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watkins, F. C.


Murnin, Hugh
Sherwood, G. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Shield, George William
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Noel Baker, P. J.
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
West, F. R.


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Palin, John Henry
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Paling, Wilfrid
Sinkinson, George
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Palmer, E. T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Pole, Major D. G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Potts, John S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Price, M. P.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Pybus, Percy John
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Sorensen, R.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wise, E. F.


Raynes, W. R.
Stephen, Campbell
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Richards, R.
Strauss, G. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Richardson, R, (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sullivan, J.



Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Thurtle.


Ritson, J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Sir F. HALL: I beg to move, in page 20, line 24, after the words last inserted, to insert the words:
() is owned by a body of persons (corporate or unincorporate) carrying on as their principal business the operating of public service vehicles for the conveyance of passengers, and is occupied and used by the owners thereof for purposes of or connected with that principal business (including the purposes of constructing, repairing, and maintaining vehicles, machinery, and plant used in connection with such principal business) and not being a land unit primarily occupied and used as offices for, or purposes ancillary to, the general direction and management of such business.
After the Division that has taken place, I venture to hope that we may receive a little more consideration at the hands of the Government than we have during the whole discussion that has taken place this afternoon. I have yet to learn that the Government will accede in any degree to any proposals suggested from this side of the House. The effect of the Amendment I am moving is that the land owned by omnibus companies will be exempt from the tax imposed in this Bill, in respect of their actual business of the conveyance of passengers by means of public vehicles I find that according to the
Road Traffic Act public vehicles comprise motor omnibuses, ordinary motor coaches and private coaches. Compared with a few years ago, the coaches on the roads at the present time have increased and multiplied out of all knowledge. By this development the industry has given a very great advantage to travelling people. There is now scarcely any road along which motor omnibuses or coaches do not wend their way, with the resulting improvement of many of the outside areas. Surely this great advantage has been conferred by the motor omnibus proprietors. But they are unfortunately in the position that they are handicapped against statutory concerns, and even against the railway companies.
If you look at Clause 20, paragraphs (b) and (d), you will find that the municipal undertakings and the railway companies are exempt from tax in respect of the land on which their garages are built. I know that there are certain omnibus companies which work under a special Act and have the advantage of exclusion from taxation because of that, and in my opinion the whole of the motor omnibus industries should be placed in the same category. I have referred to the great developments there have been in the motor omnibus business, and their
great value to those who are desirous of getting out of the town and living in the outer suburbs. They are conveyed backwards and forwards at very cheap rates. That surely is an advantage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has always laid great stress on conferring advantages on those who are of the working classes. I do not think anyone would deny the great advantage there has been in consequence of the development of this industry. I think it is harsh and unfair that one class of industry should be handicapped against another.
The right hon. Gentleman may say, as far as London is concerned, that it might be that if the Bill under discussion at the present time comes into operation, then in the ordinary course of events the omnibuses that come under it would fall within the category in which I am desirous of seeing them, namely, that they would be placed in the same category as those included in Clause 20, paragraph (d). On the other hand, that will only deal with London. But omnibuses are trading in all parts of the country, and if, assuming that the Bill does go through, you are going to give an advantage to some of the omnibus concerns which will come under the statutory obligations, I say it is only fair that all those owning omnibuses and private motor vehicles should be placed in exactly the same position as the large combines. That is the position that I am desirous of putting before the Government. I hope they will not only consider it, but will say that we have made out; a case that they should be treated on exactly the same lines as municipally-owned vehicles. I am not asking for their general exclusion, or that their offices should receive consideration, but I am asking that they should be placed in the same position as undertakings that come under paragraph (d), by which railway companies' omnibus services, in relation to their garages, etc., are exempt. These are large places built in many cases for the benefit of the travelling public. They have naturally been constructed where the traffic is the heaviest, and where the result has been that it has improved the value of the amenities in the suburbs.
Where you have improved the value of the land in the outlying districts to which they trade, you are going to get a dis-
tinct advantage on your Land Tax for the improved value that has been obtained owing to the operation of these concerns. It is only a reasonable proposal that I am submitting in this Amendment, and hope that the learned Solicitor-General will relax in this case and say that it is only fair that this advantage should be given. If the additional tax is put on these places, the private owner will not be able to run his concern as cheaply as those governed by statutory undertakings. I can understand the Solicitor-General saying that the amount will be exceedingly small, and that it would be difficult to impose it. I will not say that in £ s. d. you will be able to impose it, because I have some knowledge of the tramways of London and I know the difficulties, but it will mean that you will not be able, owing to the expenses incurred, to convey a passengers as long a distance if you impose an additional penalty on the privately-owned concerns. I submit this Amendment with the hopeful anticipation that for once to-day it will receive favourable consideration at the hands of the Government.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to second the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR- GENERAL: I do not propose to address the House at any great length on this problem. We have already dealt this afternoon, and in Committee as well, with the question of statutory companies and with private enterprise, contrasting the two. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has selected probably the least deserving case of all in his attempt to get special exemption. Whatever may be said about the case of the wharfingers, the road transport companies in this country are probably among the most prosperous of all the companies there are at the present day. Anybody who has seen the profits which these companies are making would not have any very great sympathy with them as regards the very small sums they may have to pay in respect of Land Tax. If one looks at the wording of the Amendment, one sees to what lengths it would lead, because it deals with premises used for constructing vehicles. If these factories for constructing motor cars are exempt, why not any other factories, and
then they would all be let out. This may fitly be described as the thin end of the wedge, and as we do not want any thin end in the Bill we cannot accept it.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I am afraid the argument of the thin end of the wedge does not seem wholly unfamiliar. It seems to be an answer which could be adduced on any Amendment, however much right that Amendment might have behind it. I remember reading some time ago one of Sydney Smith's Essays in which there was a collection of all the fallacies which could possibly be gathered together in support of one argument. They were summed up in what the author was pleased to call "Mr. Noodle's Oration," and one of the pet arguments was, "It may be the particular proposal in front of us is thoroughly justified, but see what is behind." I would be the last to compare the Solicitor-General with the supposed speaker of that celebrated oration, but at the same time the argument he has given is a pet argument of Mr. Noodle's, together with some others with which we have not been entirely unfamiliar during the course of these Debates.
This is not a question of destroying the tax, either by overloading the administration or by impinging on principles. We are here at a very late stage of the discussion on Report. What happens now

cannot be brought up against the Solicitor-General for further concessions later. It is just a question whether this by itself is a just thing to ask for. Everyone in familiar with the spectacle of privately-owned omnibuses on the roads, carrying often a large number of passengers. I am not concerned with denying that some of them are prosperous. But what always happens in a case of that kind is that fresh omnibuses which are privately owned enter into competition, or, what is still more likely, the municipalities or the statutory companies proceed to enlarge the services which they themselves control. Therefore, prosperity for a short time is really no answer. The whole question is, are you going to subsidise statutory companies and municipalities at the expense of private enterprise? It is quite a simple principle. It is not a case in which we are asking that any favour should be given to private enterprise. We are asking only that a competition which is likely to increase, with both statutory companies and municipalities, shall be put on an equal footing. We think it just. If the principle was urged once before, that does not impair the justice of it, and we do ask that consideration should be given. Unless that consideration is given, we shall, of course, divide the House as a protest.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 276.

Division No. 373.]
AYES.
[8.0 p.m.


Acland Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Campbell, E. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip


Albery, Irving James
Carver, Major W. H.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Dixey, A. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Eden, Captain Anthony


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm-, W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Chapman, Sir S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Christie, J. A.
Ferguson, Sir John


Beaumont, M. W.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Ford, Sir P. J.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Frece, Sir Walter de


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Hands E.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Colfox, Major William Philip
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bird, Ernest Roy
Colville, Major D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Boyce, Leslie
Cranborne, Viscount
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bracken, B.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hammersley, S. S.


Buchan, John
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Butler, R. A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Haslam, Henry C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hills, Major Rt. Hon John Waller
Peake, Captain Osbert
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Penny, Sir George
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thompson, Luke


Hunter Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Thomson, Sir F.


Hurd, Percy A.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Remer, John R.
Train, J.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Knox, Sir Alfred
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Ross, Ronald D.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Water-house. Captain Charles


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waylana, Sir William A.


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Salmon, Major I.
Wells, Sydney R.


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Withers, Sir John James


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Womersley, W. J.


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sinclair, Cot. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Skelton, A. N.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smithers, Waldron
Major the Marquess of Titchfield and Captain Austin Hudson.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)



Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cove, William G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Daggar, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dallas, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Herriotts, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hicks, Ernest George


Angell, Sir Norman
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Arnott, John
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hoffman, P. C.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dukes, C.
Hollins, A.


Ayles, Walter
Duncan, Charles
Hopkin, Daniel


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Ede, James Chuter
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edmunds, J. E.
Isaacs, George


Barr, James
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Batey, Joseph
Egan, W. H.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Foot, Isaac
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Benson, G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Birkett, W. Norman
Gibbins, Joseph
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Blindell, James
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Kelly, W. T.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gill, T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bowen, J. W.
Gillett, George M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Glassey, A. E.
Kinley, J.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gossling, A. G.
Kirkwood, D.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Gould, F.
Lang, Gordon


Bromfield, William
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bromley, J.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Brooke, W.
Gray, Milner
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Brothers, M.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lawrence, Susan


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Buchanan, G.
Groves, Thomas E.
Leach, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lees, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Leonard, W.


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Lindley, Fred W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Logan, David Gilbert


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Longbottom, A. W.


Clarke, J. S.
Karris, Percy A.
Longden, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Lunn, William


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Haycock, A. W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)




McElwee, A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Sorensen, R.


McEntee, V. L.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


McKinlay, A.
Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell


MacLaren, Andrew
Potts, John S.
Strauss, G. R.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Price, M. P.
Sullivan, J.


MscNeill-Weir, L.
Pybus, Percy John
Sutton, J. E.


McShane, John James
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Raynes, W. R.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Manning, E. L.
Richards, R.
Tillett, Ben


Mansfield, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Tinker, John Joseph


March, S.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Toole, Joseph


Marcus, M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tout, W. J.


Markham, S. F.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Marley, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan, David


Marshall, Fred
Romeril, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Mathers, George
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Matters, L. W.
Rowson, Guy
Walker, J.


Maxton, James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wallace, H. W.


Messer, Fred
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Middleton, G.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watkins, F. C.


Mills, J. E.
Sanders, W. S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Milner, Major J.
Sandham, E.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Montague, Frederick
Sawyer, G. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Morgan, Dr H. B.
Scott, James
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Morley, Ralph
Scurr, John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, Joseph


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Mort, D. L.
Sherwood, G. H.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Muff, G.
Shield, George William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wiliams, David (Swansea, East)


Murnin, Hugh
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Naylor, T. E.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Oldfield, J. R.
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sitch, Charles H.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wise, E. F.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)



Palmer, E. T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir D. HERBERT:

In page 20, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
() is property which or the income or profits of which is legally appropriated for any ecclesiastical or religious use or purpose.

Sir D. HERBERT: I believe I am right in saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to move his Amendment which appears later on the Paper.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: indicated assent.

Sir D. HERBERT: In that case I do not think there is any need for me to move this Amendment.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I beg to move, in page 20, line 41, at the end, to insert the words:
(a) is used as a playing field under some agreement with the owner which as originally made or as subsisting at the date of the commencement of this Act could not be determined
for a period of at least five years, or if there is evidence that other circumstances render it probable that the land will continue to be so used for a period of one year or more.
I may, perhaps, say that this Amendment is followed by two others, and it is necessary to take the three Amendments together to understand the full import of the Amendment which I am now moving. This Amendment has been put down in fulfilment of a pledge which I gave on two or three occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill, that I would, between then and the Report stage, see if it were possible to amalgamate a number of Amendments which were on the Paper to the extent to which I considered they were representative of a sort of average of the opinion in the House of Commons upon this question. I had, perhaps, better explain what I said on each of these occasions, because that will help the Committee to understand the character of the Amendment which I am now moving. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall
(Sir D. Maclean) has taken a rather prominent part in the discussion of this question of the exemption of playing fields. I said upon one occasion when he intervened and tried to elicit from me an expression of any views:
It has boon truly said by many speakers on this subject that there is a general feeling in the House, and it is certainly shared on this side, that we should do nothing which will penalise genuine cases. We are anxious to do whatever we can to encourage and help the extension of such sport and recreation.
I went on a little later to say:
But I believe if words can be devised which will exempt every genuine playing-field, I am quite prepared to incorporate those words in the Bill. The Amendment of the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean) offers a more promising opening for attaining the object that most Members of the Committee desire to achieve, and I should be quite prepared to give an undertaking between new and Report that we will work upon the idea of that Amendment, and see whether it is possible to draft an Amendment which will meet the conditions which I have mentioned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1931; cols. 381 and 382, Vol. 254.]
I may add that that interpolation took place at the end of a Debate upon a very wide Amendment for the exemption of sports grounds and playing fields, an Amendment on which the Government escaped defeat by a very narrow majority. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall explained the following evening that the result of that Division was perhaps due in some measure to a state of confusion which existed at the time the vote was taken. I should hope that his conclusion was right, because I am sure that the terms of the Amendment on which the Committee voted on that occasion were such as many Members who did vote would not have supported had they realised the full implications and import of them. When it was later pointed out that it would include the exemption of racecourses, dog-racing, dirt-track racing and the like, hon. Members below the Gangway literally held up their hands an horror at the proposal to exempt these forms of sport. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall put his Amendment on the Paper, and I was advised, and the Solicitor-General stated in the course of the Debate, that even his Amendment as drafted would have given exemption to those forms of sport to which I have referred. Later we revised
the Amendment to exclude racecourses, dog-racing and similar forms of sport.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: What was the data of my statement?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement on both occasions, and I have read from the report of 23rd June. A further intervention followed next evening in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, when I made what I think he described as a very conciliatory statement. I said in reply to him on that occasion:
I said I was quite prepared to give an undertaking that between then and the Report stage we would hammer away at the germ of an idea which is in the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and see if we could arrive at a form which would be generally satisfactory,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th; June, 1931; col. 531, Vol. 2,54.]
I went on to refer to the suggestion which he had made for a conference. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal party, who followed me, said:
What the right hon. Gentleman has now said is quite clear, and I think that my right hon. Friend and the rest of us will consider it satisfactory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1931; col. 532, Vol. 254.]
I have said that this Amendment, which has been put down in my name and which I am now moving, is the best effort that I could make to express the views of what I believe is not only the great majority of the House of Commons, but practically the whole of the House of Commons. It is what I might describe, not so much as a Government Amendment as an Amendment by the whole House of Commons. I tried in my efforts to frame such an Amendment to find out the views of those who had Amendments on the Paper, and this Amendment is the result. I tried to embody what appeared to me to be the aim of those who had Amendments on the Paper, and I have, as far as I can, incorporated their words in the Amendment, except where it was necessary to make some verbal alterations in order to improve the draftsmanship. The first Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall would, I think—he explained that it was not his intention—have exempted some of those forms of sport which are now expressly excluded from exemption in terms by one of the Amendments that I am proposing. He had a second Amendment which provided for back
payments of tax where land ceased to be exempt because it was no longer devoted to the purposes of sport. The form of this Amendment, I was advised, would probably have resulted in its being ruled out of order. So my legal advisers and draftsmen set to work, and they have devised the Amendment which appears on the Paper, and which I am further advised is likely to meet the object of the right hon. Gentleman's original Amendment.
That is an explanation of the reasons why these Amendments appear on the Paper. I said, when I proposed the Land Tax Resolution, that I should be willing on Committee stage to give consideration to any Amendment that was brought forward that seemed to be a reasonable and just one and consistent with the general purposes and objects of the Bill. That is the attitude I have taken all through. I believe that the Amendment which I am moving will express the almost unanimous views of the House of Commons, but I must confess that I am a little uneasy whether in practice loopholes may not be created by which exemptions will be claimed for organisations and forms of sport which the House of Commons does not intend to exempt. However, that is a risk that we have always to take. The ingenuity of lawyers never rests, and if it be possible to find some means of evading these provisions here and there, it will be for the House of Commons in future to stop such loopholes by amending legislation.

Sir D. MACLEAN: The House will have been interested and gratified, as I have been, by the closeness of reasoning by which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has arrived at the Amendment which is now on the Paper, and which, as he truly says, is not the wish of any particular party in the House, but is the wish of the House as a whole. He has expressed the fear that as time goes on, there may be some loopholes. If there are, it is a very much better policy for this House to run the risk of loopholes rather than damage in any way a great and progressive national movement. I am glad that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen that it was wise to run that risk. In his conciliatory speech to-night I think he has adopted the Amendment not only substantially but more than substantially: as a whole he
has adopted the proposals which came from both parties on this side of the House. For my own part, I tender my appreciation to hon. Members above the Gangway on this side who have rendered us assistance in endeavouring to place this thing fairly and fully before the House of Commons. We are all agreed, and as somebody once said, "When they are agreed their unanimity is wonderful." I express pleasure, as I am sure the country as a whole does, at the decision which the right hon. Gentleman has come to, and I am certain the House of Commons will endorse it unanimously and heartily.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I, too, would like to make my acknowledgements to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the completeness with which he has covered the Amendments put down by hon. Members of our party as well as of the Liberal party. I examined his latest form of exemption for playing fields with scrupulous care, and although I racked my brains for some time I really could not think of anything else which I could ask him for on this point. That applies to the main Amendment. There is another Amendment which the Chancellor mentioned, and on which I should now like to say a word, because I may not have another opportunity. That is the Amendment which deals with the back payments which are to be made when the land unit ceases to be exempt by reason of no longer being used as a playing field. I do not quite appreciate the logic of the provision which says that when a man develops his land, which in theory it is the object of the tax to make him do, he is to be punished by having to pay the cumulative tax, but I am not going to argue that point. What I want to put is this: It is quite conceivable that there may be an alteration in the rate of the tax in the period immediately preceding that at which the land unit ceases to be exempt, and it would appear that the owner might be made to pay the tax for five years at the increased rate, although that increased rate had not actually been in operation for more than a fraction of that time. I think, perhaps, it is sufficient to state the point and draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to it for it to receive consideration.

Major GLYN: I am sure the whole House will agree with the right hon.
Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) in expressing gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but, unlike my right hon. Friend, I feel there is one more request which I have to make, and that concerns the question of polo playing fields. Polo is indulged in only by the very rich, and I do not play it, and I am not speaking for myself, but I would point out that polo gives a great deal of employment and leads to the breeding of ponies for that particular purpose. It is not a selfish game in that sense of the word, because it does provide employment for a great many people. A polo ground is usually in the neighbourhood of a great city, and it is extremely difficult to see how polo grounds like Hurlingham and Ranelagh can possibly continue if this taxis to be imposed. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows, it is a formidable business to be asked to consume all the pudding at one sitting; it is a different thing if one can cut it up and eat it by degrees. To try to pay the tax on a large area all at once is like trying to eat the whole of a pudding—it is liable to produce indigestion.
For polo a large area of ground is necessary, and one cannot sell that area at one moment for development purposes. It may have to be sold by degrees. I feel there is a Case to be put forward for polo. It is true that it is not one of our national games, that we introduced it from India, but we have adopted it, and though I do not wish to appear to be ungrateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done already, I would appeal to him to consider whether ho cannot include polo grounds with playing fields. There are a great many people who play polo, and it is a manly sport, employing a great deal of labour both in the towns and in the country.

Mr. CAMPBELL: In moving his Amendment the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to the persuasion, of which perhaps it is the result, of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). He entirely omitted the fact that many of us on these benches have all along uttered practically the same words as my right hon. Friend: the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take them into consideration in the slightest degree—at least according to his
speech to-night. Perhaps he has a special reason for mentioning the right hon. Member for North Cornwall, but hon. Members in my party have just as much reason to be cheerful or disappointed as any Member on the Liberal benches.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I hope the hon. Member will not think that I was unappreciative of his own efforts. I know that he has been working very keenly on behalf of this movement.

Mr. CAMPBELL: It was not for my self that I was speaking, but in addition to being a sportsman I am also a member of the Conservative party, and in this instance I was speaking more for my party than for myself. I did use my very best endeavours, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will know, long before this question came up in the House of Commons, to get the National Playing Fields' Association, as a non-party body, to se- sure as many exemptions as possible from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order to avoid having to discuss them on the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, we did not have any very great success then, but eventually an Amendment was brought forward by the right hon. Member for North Cornwall to which I had the honour of attaching my name, and had not members of his party run away from their own Amendment on that particular evening of the 23rd June we should not have had this Debate to-night, because——

Sir D. MACLEAN: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. I hoped we should keep clear of this kind of party controversy, and I avoided it myself of set purpose, but as my hon. Friend has mentioned the point I must say that the Amendment on which the Division took place was not the party Amendment at all but quite a different one.

Mr. CAMPBELL: I agree that the wording of it was not precisely similar, but I am of the opinion that it was a pity that on that particular evening the Liberal Amendment was not carried to complete success. I am very pleased with the Amendment now submitted, and am very grateful on behalf of all the various associations for whom I spoke a few nights ago. Already I have received telephone messages from various bodies
saying how pleased they are to see this Amendment brought forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall admit that the wording of the Amendment is the original wording of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall. The very words which he put on the Order Paper, and to which I put my name, under his, are the very words which have been taken up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is satisfactory to note that practically all the Amendments which we put down have been embodied in this Amendment by the Chancellor. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) that it is a pity that polo has not been exempted, because it will be difficult for those people who are interested at Hurlingham and Ranelagh to differentiate in regard to the land that is being used for golf, lawn tennis and polo. I do not take any particular interest in polo, but I think that such a small matter in a big Bill of this kind might just as well have been agreed to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I want to say again how extremely grateful I am to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Front Bench for giving this exemption of playing fields, because I am sure that the whole country will not only appreciate this concession, but benefit by it. I think that it was a great mistake that playing fields were not exempted from the first. As soon as I saw this Bill the first question I asked myself was how would playing fields be affected? I have been asking that question ever since, and I am glad that we have at last succeeded in getting this concession.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I wish to pay my tribute to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the learned Solicitor-General who have been so generous in meeting the general wishes of the House by putting down the Amendment which we are now discussing. But while I accept the generosity which has been exhibited by the Government, may I point out that there seems to have been a little misapprehension? The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) has told us that on the very afternoon when the Bill was
introduced he set to work trying to find out how playing fields would be affected. Unfortunately the result of his work did not appear on the Amendment Paper for a long time after an Amendment had been put down by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Sir D. Maclean). How the name of the hon. Member for Bromley got in front of mine on the Amendment Paper I do not know, but I do not think it was a question of getting up early, because the words of the Amendment happen to be mine. We have been accused on these benches of not framing Amendments in a proper way, but I am glad to know that the words which I put down were adopted by the hon. Member for Bromley. How it happened that his name, and the name of another hon. Member below the Gangway, appeared in front of mine I do not know, but as the hon. Member for Bromley has said, we are all sportsmen. I wish to repeat my thanks to the Solicitor-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for meeting our wishes in regard to this question.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: Although I cannot agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) that polo should be exempted, I want to point out that there is one particular field which is not going to be exempted. I think it will be generally accepted that one of the bright spots in industry is the motor Industry, and it is one of the few bright spots. The only place that is left for the motor industry to test their machines is a track very close to London. They are not allowed, according to the Road Traffic Act, to use their cars in races upon the public road. I do not say that that is not quite right, but at the same time it is the law that they are not to do so, and the only place where they can really test their machines for endurance and speed is at Brook lands.
According to this Bill Brooklands is going to come into the same category as horse-racing, polo, and dog-racing. I submit that motoring should not come into that class. I know there is a certain type of mind that only looks upon Brooklands Park as a kind of round saucer on which people endeavour to kill themselves, but those who hold that view know very little about what the Brooklands track is really used for. The long
endurance races and the 500 mile race are not arranged just to amuse people and see what speed they can attain. I go so far as to say that those races and those trials have been very largely responsible for the very excellent cars that Great Britain is able to turn out to-day. We heard a short time ago of a particular make of car which is now world renowned, and I submit that it was very largely those particular trials and races that tested the engine and made such a success possible.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Dunnico): I am afraid that if we allow a long discussion on the merits of the subject which the hon. Member is now discussing we might have other forms of sport discussed at length in detail also.

Mr. HALL-CAINE: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but am I not in order in stating that the places for testing motor cars in this country are so few that this particular track ought to be exempted, In Italy Signor Mussolini and the Government of Italy actually finance the people who come over to this country and to Ireland to try to win motor races, and this country does nothing of that sort. Cricket and football grounds are all very well in their way, but may I point out that they employ professional men who are paid, and why should they be exempt and not Brooklands, which is of real use to this country? Is it because the Liberals have put down an Amendment that we have to bow to this proposal? When trade is so bad, we should do everything we can to help it, and I do not think it is helping, but trying to throttle trade, to prevent the ordinary means by which these motor manufacturers better their engines and cars in order to sell them to other countries. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not look upon this track as a mere race-track. If he feels any uncertainty on the matter I would only suggest that he should go down there on any morning or afternoon and see the maufacturers testing their engines on the track. I hope he will give consideration to this point.

Sir W. DAVISON: There is one kind of place of recreation that I should be glad to be assured by the Solicitor-General in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is intended to be included in
this Amendment, namely, the squares of London, of which we are all so proud and which are such a feature——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to be referring to the wrong Amendment. He himself has an Amendment down on that subject on the Order Paper.

Sir W. DAVISON: I understood that that Amendment would not be reached and that my only opportunity——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member should wait and see.

Sir W. DAVISON: I thought it might save the time of the House if I asked the Government now whether the London squares were included, and pointed out that their case appeared to be germane to the Amendment on the Paper. I am not clear whether I ought to move it or not.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This Amendment refers to sports and playing fields and not to London squares.

Sir W. DAVISON: On a point of Order——

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: There is really no point of Order. The hon. Member's Amendment will be called if reached.

Sir W. DAVISON: Then am I not entitled to speak on the main Question, and to refer to the London squares?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to put down an Amendment raising a specific subject and then to anticipate it by making his speech on a previous Amendment dealing with a different subject.

Mr. DIXEY: I also would like to add a word of congratulation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the gesture he has made, but I cannot help feeling impressed by the eloquent speech of his colleague below the Gangway. It seems to me very unfair that the Government should exclude certain and particular sports, which are very useful to the community, from the very generous gesture he has made. Perhaps I might refer to the Amendment with respect to polo.
The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but surely he does not want to legislate in any class way——

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I shook my head because there is not an Amendment on the Paper. It is a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. DIXEY: At all events, there is an Amendment to include polo in the benefits of this Clause. A little thing like polo will not affect the revenue from this tax——

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I point out that there is an Amendment to Clause 28 which mentions polo?

Mr. DIXEY: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. At all events, the Solicitor-General has made a gesture to the Liberal party. That is the feeling in the House. It is perfectly true that the whole germ of the Amendment was raised equally from these benches, but, so far as I gather from the attitude of the Solicitor-General, he is not prepared to make any gesture at all except to certain specific classes. However many people may be employed in connection with polo, because it is supposed to be a game played by the rich he will not, because he represents a Socialist Government, do anything for it. That is most unfair to a large number of people who are employed in connection with that sport. The Solicitor-General knows quite well that probably there are far more deserving people employed in connection with polo than there are in connection with some other sports and pastimes that he proposes to exempt. I always understood that a Socialist Government, with the support of Radical colleagues, would stand for no class distinction, but for fair treatment; for all classes in the community. Everyone knows the position of Hurlingham—that it is very difficult to carry it on, that it is not a big profit-making concern, and that it is questionable whether it will be able to go on at all; and, surely, the Solicitor-General is not going to be scared by a tiny criticism, possibly from a certain section of his party, that he is yielding on the question of a pastime of the rich. Again, I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway know that it would
be a proper thing to include, but they, too, are scared at the class idea that they may be taken to be supporting the rich, and they are afraid to support the perfectly clear principle that these people are usefully employed in a clean and healthy game.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is the hon. Member aware that the champion polo player of the world is a Liberal, and a supporter of the Liberal party?

Mr. DIXEY: Unfortunately, my hon. Friend does not appear to appreciate that this is not a question of personalities, but I know that some of my hon. Friends opposite always like to be fair and unbiased, and I think that a tiny little matter of this sort might well have been included in the generous gesture which has been made. I appeal to the Solicitor-General. He is a man of great strength. It is very unfortunate that his right hon. colleague has left the House, but even now it is not too late, when he knows the feeling of the whole House. For instance, I am sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is quite willing to support this suggestion. It is quite a fair suggestion, and it is sheer hypocrisy to exclude one game from the benefit of this concession. Because the party opposite so love the expressions "democracy" and "working people," they will exclude the polo groom simply because they cannot face the criticisms which will possibly be levelled at them by their extreme back-benchers. If this House is of any use at all, it should conduct its business impartially, and not by class legislation.

Mr. KELLY: I rise rather to ask a question than to make a speech, but I am glad to have been in the House to hear that the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Dixey) has at last realised the fairness of Members who sit on this side of the House. I can assure him that they always desire to be impartial, and that, whenever they depart from impartiality, it is to the advantage of hon. Members opposite. I am not going to follow the plea for polo players, because I do not look upon this question from the point of view of whether the game is one played by the rich man or by the poor man, but I want to ask this question. The hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-
Caine) referred to certain other sides of sport. I am concerned with one part of this country—some people may doubt whether it is a part of this country—where such sports are engaged in. The hon. Gentleman may have a guarantee that it will be reserved for that purpose for the next five years. Those sports do not take place in any particular enclosure, but pretty well the whole of the roads on one side of the island are used for that purpose. Certain parts of the Finance Rill apply to the Isle of Man, and I am anxious to know whether or not it is the intention of the Solicitor-General, if he is thinking in terms of Brooklands and places of that character, to exclude all the roads in the Isle of Man, because it will have to exclude the whole of them, as they use the whole of them for the purpose of that sport and those races.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I congratulate the Government on their prudence and their intelligence, because the electors are interested in sport more than anything else. I do not think it will affect horse-racing much, or dog racing, because those are commercial pursuits in which there is such a large accretion of wealth, which I believe is sometimes lost, that they do not feel the burden. But there is something to be said as to Brook-lands and also in regard to the polo places. They are very valuable sites. We should all raise our hands to Heaven and thank God that there are some people who can use a valuable site for a sport and do not try to draw money out of it. We ought to encourage anyone to keep an open space like Ranelagh or Brooklands and not allow it to be cluttered up with buildings. The mere fact that they have these open spaces which are used by members of the public generally is a reasonable excuse—polo is a splendid training for cavalry and for military men generally—for not imposing this heavy burden, because the burden will be very heavy. In fact it will extinguish these places. The owner of a garden in the middle of a town is a benefactor to the whole neighbourhood, even if they cannot see over the wall, because there is a greater expanse of air which might have been poisoned by petrol. I suggest that the Government should not make two bites at a cherry, but should let Brooklands in, and let
the polo grounds in, and do the whole thing graciously and generously.

9.0 p.m.

Brigadier-General MAKINS: I have an Amendment later to leave out the word "polo" in the Chancellor's Amendment to Clause 28. It is a most extraordinary thing that every game has been excluded from the Bill with the exception of polo. It looks to me as if it had been overlooked that polo is a game. We have in the Chancellor's Amendment,
'Playing field' moans land used mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open air games or recreation other than horse racing, polo, coursing, dog racing, motor racing, or motor-cycle racing.
Why sandwich a game in between these various types of races? I cannot understand why this one game should have been selected to be interlarded and jumbled up with other things which are not games, but are more in the nature of sports. Polo is a genuine game. It is the king of games. It trains the nerve and the eye and takes a great deal of the best horsemanship. Polo, combined with hunting, has made the cavalry officer what he is and always has been. Foreign countries have realised what polo has done for the officers of this country and have done their best to introduce it and encourage it in every way in their own country. I cannot understand why, if you exclude every other game, polo should not be put in the same Clause with all the others. Surely it cannot be said it has been put in purely because this is a class Measure, because there are not sufficient votes among people interested in polo or because they have not realised that it is a game and not a race. It means that various polo clubs, especially round the Metropolis, will go out of business and close down, and the great open spaces will be built on. When the Amendment is reached, I feel sure the Solicitor-General will accept it. It is the only logical course the Government could possibly pursue.

Mr. MANDER: I should like to express my appreciation of the action of the Government in accepting the views of the Liberal party, and other parties in the House, too. They have done so generously, and it will be to the benefit of people all over the country that agreement has been reached on the matter. The hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Campbell) made a remark which. I think,
should be dealt with at once. He tried to make some party capital out of what he alleged was the action of the Liberal party as a whole in failing to support the Amendment on playing fields which was put down the other night. It cannot be too clearly stated that it was not an official Amendment of the Liberal party [Interruption.] What I am saying is perfectly accurate, and I do not think that my hon. Friend will dispute it for a moment. It is open for any hon. Members in any party in this House to put down Amendments on any subject, but they do not always get the backing of their party. On that occasion, we did not support the Amendment because the Liberal party did not officially think that is was one to which they could give their backing. That ought to be clearly understood, and I hope that in future no attack will be made upon the party as a whole in regard to that matter.
I rather think that the two points to which I am going to refer are met under the terms of the Bill, but I am going to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for a definite assurance. Are playing fields and recreation grounds provided by employers in different parts of the country for their employés exempted under the provisions of the Bill? There is a very large number of such welfare recreation grounds, and I am sure that everybody would desire to support them in every possible way. I think that they are exempt, but I should be glad to have an assurance upon the point. There is the question of bowling greens. A large number of people in my constituency and in the Midlands generally who are not in the position, unfortunately, to play polo, spend their Saturday afternoons during the summer in playing the very agreeable game of bowls. It will be a matter of great concern to them to know whether bowling greens are exempt. I think they are clearly exempt, but I should like a definite assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on that point.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER - CLAY: I want to re-enforce the speech which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Brigadier-General Makins) with regard to the game of polo. I should like to know from the Financial Secretary how he differentiates between a polo club and a golf club such as Addington or Walton Heath, or any club
near London. What is the difference? They are both games, and are played by more or less the same class. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows that it is a notorious fact that one of the polo clubs is in an extremely difficult financial position, and that in adding this burden to clubs of such a character, some of the difficulties of which, no doubt, are due to the action of the Government in regard to taxation, he is going to strike a vital blow at such clubs. I should like an explanation as to how he draws the line between a golf club and a polo club which is in rather deep water. I should not have spoken if there had been the slightest chance of my Amendment on the matter being reached.

Major BRAITHWAITE: I want to congratulate the Government on their very good sense in having produced this Amendment. As chairman of one of the League football clubs in the country, I can assure the Government that if they had persisted in their attitude to tax football grounds, they would have lost many of their supporters. I rise mainly for the purpose of obtaining a definition of the word "polo." It is unfair to put an imposition of this kind upon the game of polo. There are several kinds of polo. In my constituency they are thinking of constructing an open-air swimming bath where they can play water-polo? Does water-polo come within the definition of this Amendment? I want to know whether they are going to be taxed or not. The Minister in charge should make plain the intention of the Government in this matter before the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
This is another attempt to muzzle one of the great sports of this country, namely, horse racing. It is absurd to continue making a martyr of this sport which is enjoyed by so many, and which employs a great many people in the country. There are a great many small racecourses which to-day can barely carry on, and this tax will be a severe imposition upon them and do a great deal of harm to the sport of horse racing. The sport encourages the production of live stock and encourages our agriculturists, and the proposal of the Government means that the Socialist party are going to drive another nail into the coffin of agriculture. Agriculture is an industry which has received
many blows, and this is another attempt to saddle it with further charges and impositions to make it more difficult for the farmer to carry on his business. In my constituency we hold annual coursing meetings where we pursue the hare, and I should like to know whether those lands are going to be the subject of taxation. The words of the Amendment are "mainly or exclusively," and lend themselves to a wide interpretation. Three or four meetings are held in connection with this particular form of sport, and I should like to know whether they will come within the definition of this Amendment.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am not quite sure what is the hon. and gallant Member's question. Is the suggestion that certain grounds are used for other recreations during the year and that on four occasions in the year they are used for coursing, or is the suggestion that the grounds to which he refers are grounds which are used for no recreations except that on four occasions a year they are used for coursing?

Major BRAITHWAITE: They are used for agricultural purposes, with the exception of the four coursing meetings a year. I think that the Amendment of the Minister covers the point, but it is one upon which we ought to be satisfied. The Government have been wise in withdrawing a great many of the sports of the country from the imposition of an iniquitous and most unjust tax, and I hope that the Minister will see whether it is within his power to exclude some of the other sports which are likely to be severely jeopardised by actions of this kind.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I regret that I cannot join in the general chorus of congratulation which I have heard from so many hon. Members in the House tonight. The question of playing fields should have been one of the first questions to have received the consideration of the Government before they introduced their Bill. No regard whatever was shown for the interests of the great number of associations and sports clubs throughout the country, and when the Bill was introduced in its original form,
its shortcomings in this respect were very noticeable. When I consider what has taken place subsequently I do not feel that I owe the slightest degree of gratitude to the Government for the action they took. A whole series of Amendments dealing with this matter was on the Order Paper for a considerable time, and it was perfectly competent for them to have placed a reasoned Amendment on the Order Paper during the Committee stage.
Reference has been made to the fact that the Amendment I moved from these benches was not an official Liberal Amendment. I have yet to learn that Liberal Members are not entitled to put down Amendments they receive from their own constituencies, and support them, if necessary, in the Lobby. The Amendment I had the honour to move the other day was taken word for word from the Finance Act of 1910, giving the exemptions which were given under that Act, and the arguments of the Solicitor-General were therefore entirely unfounded. That Amendment would have given an opportunity to include some objects which, I think, might yet be properly included in the exemptions. It was supported in the Lobby by some of my colleagues and by hon. Members above the Gangway, I wish there had been a few more when we might have been in a stronger position to secure our objects.
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer talks about the confusion which that Amendment created, may I say that there was no confusion whatever except in the mind of the Government? As far as the House was concerned, it was a perfectly clear and straightforward vote expressing the views of the great majority in this House, and if we had not used that occasion in the way we did in order to enforce this point upon the Government, we would not have been in such a strong position to-day. The Government have come into line with public opinion very late and they will not get much credit in the country for doing so. They certainly do not deserve any credit. So far as the negotiations which have passed are concerned, I have no knowledge of them. It appears clear, however, that there has only been a reluctant concession to the views held in all quarters of the House, and while I am glad to know that this
Amendment has been moved, I still think that the Government might have acted in a much more generous spirit.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I welcome the expression of opinion which has come from all sections of the House with the exception of the hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) in recognition of the action of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly not.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am referring to the speeches that I have heard. There may have been other hon. Members who took a different view, but, as far as the speeches I have heard are concerned, I welcome the expression of opinion which has come from different parts of the House. My right hon. Friend has endeavoured to meet the wishes of the House, and it has been recognised by hon. Members who have spoken that in so doing he has enabled playing fields as a whole to escape the tax, which they might have been called upon to pay as the Bill originally stood. I have been asked certain specific questions. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) asked me whether water polo would be excluded by the Amendment. It is a very technical point as to whether a swimming bath is a playing field, and I am afraid that I cannot give him an answer. He also asked me to give a definition of polo. There, again, I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member an answer. Obviously, the intention of the Amendment is to deal with polo as played on polo grounds, and on the main issue it is a matter of argument as to whether this particular form of sport should or should not be included in the exemptions. The position of the Government is that this particular sport should not have the benefit of the exemptions. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? It is a game."] As to those sports which are played by the great bulk of the people, they stand on a different footing.
The same hon. and gallant Member asked me whether a field used for the purposes of agriculture, but used four times during the year for the purposes of coursing would be subject to the tax. First of all it is land used for the purposes of agriculture, and, therefore, it would be subject to the provision which
deducts from the land value the cultivation value of the site. If the cultivation value of the site exceeds or is up to the land value no tax will be paid. Then the question comes, suppose the site value is greater than the cultivation value, would it be excluded from the tax because coursing takes place upon it four times during the year? If the hon. Member will address his attention to the Order Paper he will see that coursing is expressly one of those sports which does not provide exemption under this Amendment, and, therefore, the fact that coursing takes place will not enable that site, assuming that the land value is in excess of the cultivation value, to escape the burden of this tax. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) wanted to be perfectly clear whether under the Amendment a playing field provided by an employer for his employés would be excluded from the tax. I can give him that assurance. It is perfectly clear that these playing fields are included in the exemptions, as long as they are used as playing fields. He also asked a question with regard to the position of bowling clubs. There, again, it is quite clear that they are not ruled out by the Amendment.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Why is polo ruled out?

An HON. MEMBER: Because it is not in!

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I rise to express deep satisfaction at the way in which playing fields of schools, included as they are in the provisions laid down, will be exempted. That satisfaction is tinged with regret that the sites of schools are not exempted. It may be said that this result has been arrived at by effective co-operation between two parties, and let us hope it will continue. It was remarked last night by a well-known journalist that a Chancellor of the Exchequer had lost his Waterloo on the playing fields of England. Like many epigrams that is only partly true, but we can say that he has shown a wise discretion in yielding to the national feeling.

Mr. MacLAREN: I want to reply to the statement made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. D. Millar), who said he felt no debt of gratitude for the Government's compromise with regard to
playing fields. I have been thinking, while listening to this Debate, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received as much gratitude for his exemptions as he would have received if he had made none at all. The hon. Member for East Fife says that he lacks any feeling of gratitude or thankfulness towards the Government, because it has been a belated concession. I want to say in fairness that I protested against any form of exemption at all where private interests were making profits, but all the time there was in the minds of the framers of the Bill and those of us who are supporting it the possibility of drawing up a Clause which would exempt really genuine playing fields. [HON. MEMBERS: "Tell it to the marines!"] I can assure hon. Members opposite that it is quite true, and if it will strengthen their faith in my veracity, let me toll them that I devoted two or three days to trying to draw up a Clause to such a purpose.
The exemption has been made to-night, and I want to say now that it is far too wide in my opinion. I understand the only things which are not exempt now are dogs, horses, mechanical mice or something of that kind. Everything else is exempt—even professional football grounds. There is a football ground at Chelsea which is a positive harassment to the whole neighbourhood when the howling mobs let loose cheers at each goal which is scored. When they get going for acres around people cannot sleep. [Interruption.] It is going on during certain seasons of the year, and it begins somewhere about seven o'clock and lasts until eleven at night. The cheering and the noise of the machines is a positive disturbance to the area. I never look at a crowd coming out of a

football ground without getting afraid of democracy. If the same zest and enthusiasm were exhibited by hon. Members opposite regarding things that really matter——

It being half-past Nine of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of 4th and 29th June, to put forthwith the Question on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice, had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded at half-past Nine of the Clock at this day's Sitting.

Amendment made: In page 20, line 43, at the end, insert the words:
(b) is used, wholly or mainly for the purpose of public religious worship."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Another Amendment proposed to the Bill, in page 21, line 5, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that, where any land unit which has been exempt from tax by reason of paragraph (a) of this Sub-section ceases to be so exempt, the tax chargeable in respect of the unit for the first complete year of charge for which the tax becomes chargeable in respect thereof shall be multiplied by five or by the number of complete years of charge, during which the unit has been so exempt as aforesaid whichever is the less."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 281; Noes, 217.

Division No. 374.]
AYES.
[9.30 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Burgess, F. G.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benson, G.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Birkett, W. Norman
Cameron, A. G.


Alpass, J. H.
Blindell, James
Cape, Thomas


Ammon, Charles George
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Bowen, J. W.
Chater, Daniel


Arnott, John
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Clarke, J. S.


Aske, Sir Robert
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bromfield, William
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Ayles, Walter
Bromley, J.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Brooke, W.
Campton, Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Brothers, M.
Cove, William G.


Barr, James
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Cowan, D. M.


Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cripps, Sir Stafford


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Daggar, George


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Buchanan, G.
Dallas, George


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Romeril, H. G.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Day, Harry
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lees, J.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, Charles
Leonard, W.
Sanders, W. S.


Ede, James Chuter
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Logan, David Gilbert
Scott, James


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Foot, Isaac
Longden, F.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gill, T. H.
MacLaren, Andrew
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gillett, George M.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


Glassey, A. E.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gossling, A. G.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Sinkinson, George


Gould, F.
McShane, John James
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Gray, Milner
Manning, E. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
March, S.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Marcus, M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Markham, S. F.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Groves, Thomas E.
Marley, J.
Sorensen, R.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marshall, Fred
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Stephen, Campbell


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Matters, L. W.
Strauss, G. R.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Maxton, James
Sullivan, J.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Messer, Fred
Sutton, J. E.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Middleton, G.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Millar, J. D.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mills, J. E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstow)


Harris, Percy A.
Milner, Major J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Montague, Frederick
Tillett, Ben


Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph
Toole, Joseph


Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Tout, W. J.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.
Vaughan, David


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Muff, G.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Walker, J.


Herriotts, J.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallace, H. W.


Hicks, Ernest George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hoffman, P. C.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hollins, A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Welsh, James C (Coatbridge)


Hopkin, Daniel
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
West, F. R.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Westwood, Joseph


Isaacs, George
Palin, John Henry
White, H. G.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Paling, Wilfrid
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Palmer, E. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Perry, S. F.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pole, Major D. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Price, M. P.
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pybus, Percy John
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Kinley, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Wise, E. F.


Kirkwood, D.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lang, Gordon
Raynes, W. R.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Richards, R.



Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Richardson, R. (Houghton, le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W. J
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Viscountess
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Atholl, Duchess of
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)




Balniel, Lord
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H
Frece, Sir Walter de
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Beaumont, Mr. W.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Peake, Captain Osbert


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Perkins, W. R. D.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Boothby, R. J. G.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John R.


Boyce, Leslie
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bracken, B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Briscoe, Richard George
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ross, Ronald D.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Buchan, John
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Salmon, Major I.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Butler, R. A.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hartington, Marquess of
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Carver, Major W. H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Skelton, A. N.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dino. C.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. H. (Prtsmth, S.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Kills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord K. (Ox. Univ.)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Christie, J. A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hurd, Percy A.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Iveagh, Countess of
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Colman, N. C. D.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Nortor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Sir F.


Cranborne, Viscount
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Dalkeith, Earl of
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lymington, Viscount
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dixey, A. C.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive. Lieut.-Colonel George


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Eden, Captain Anthony
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Withers, Sir John James


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)



Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fermoy, Lord
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir George Penny and Captain Euan Wallace.


Fielden, E. B.
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.



Ford, Sir P. J.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)



Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 5, at the end, insert the words:
(3) No tax shall be chargeable in respect of any land unit for any period during which there is neither a person who would be chargeable to the tax in respect thereof nor a person from whom any part of the tax would he recoverable under the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the re-coupment of tax to leaseholders by lessors, except a person who would be entitled to
relief from the tax, or from the part so recoverable under the provisions of Sub-section (1) or (2) of the Section of this Act next following."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Relief from tax in certain cases.)

Amendments made: In page 21, line 26, leave out from the word "ownership," to the word "of," in line 27.

In line 34, leave out from the word "ownership," to the word "shall," in line 35.

In page 22, line 2, leave out from the word "ownership," to the word "whether." in line 4.—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 23.—(Power of Commissioners to obtain information.)

Amendments made: In page 23, line 16, at the end, insert the words:
together with any further details necessary for the purposes of the identification thereof.

In line 21, after the word "consideration," insert the words "if any."

After the word "him," insert the words:
after the eighteenth day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three.

In line 24, leave out from the word "any" to the second word "this," in line 26, and insert instead thereof the words:
tithe, tithe rent charge, or other payment in lieu of tithe issuing out of or charged upon the land and any of the incumbrances mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (g) of the First Schedule to."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 28.—(General definitions.)

Amendments made: In page 28, line 32, leave out from the word "farmhouse," to the word "and," in line 36, and insert instead thereof the words:

"occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and any agricultural cottage so occupied which is on or contiguous to that land."

In line 42, after the word "farmhouse," insert the words "or agricultural cottage."

In page 29, line 2, at the end, insert the words:
'Agricultural cottage' means, a relation to any land, a house used as a dwelling-house of a person who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed.

In line 19, at the end, insert the words:
'Farmhouse' means, in relation to any land, a house used as the dwelling-house of the person who is primarily engaged in carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Another Amendment proposed, in page 29, line 40, at the end, to insert the words:
'Playing field' means land used mainly or exclusively for the purposes of open air games or recreation other than horse racing, polo, coursing, dog racing, motor racing, or motor-cycle racing."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Question put, "That the Amendment be made."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 217.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, leave out from the word "of" in line 8, to the word "and" in line 9, and insert instead thereof the words:
January, nineteen hundred and thirty-two, as respects the second valuation the first day of August, nineteen hundred and thirty-six."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 31.—(Application to Scotland.)

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Craigie Aitchison): I beg to move, in page 31, line 6, to leave out paragraph (a), and to insert instead thereof the words:
(a) the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, shall be substituted for the Allotments Act, 1922, and the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, as originally enacted, shall be substituted for the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
This is really a drafting Amendment. The first part of the Amendment substitutes the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1922, for the Allotments Act, 1922. Allotment gardens within the meaning of the Allotments Act, 1922, are mentioned in the definition of agricultural purposes in Clause 28 of the Bill, and accordingly in the Clause with which we are now dealing we have to make a corresponding provision. As regards the second part of the Amendment, the only words that call for explanation are the
words "as originally enacted." The House will see that the Amendment says:
the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, 1923, as originally enacted, shall be substituted for the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
The reason for the insertion of these words is that at the present time there is a Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill in the House of Lords, and if that Bill becomes law a new Schedule will be substituted for the First Schedule in the Act of 1923. The new Schedule which will be substituted will not have any effect as regards Clauses 20–27 of the First Schedule to which this Amendment refers. The reason why we have to put in the words "as originally enacted" is that the numbering of the Clauses of the new Schedule may be different from the numbering of the old Schedule, and in order to secure exact correspondence in the matter we require to put in these words.

Sir JOHN GILMOUR: The Lord Advocate has explained the reason for putting in the words "as originally enacted' because of a Bill at present under consideration. But I want to be clear about some aspects of this problem. The Lord Advocate knows that under the Act as originally enacted the Schedule deals with a variety of topics, some of which require, under that Act, the consent of the landlord to be carried out. In the other Measure that is under consideration, whatever the result of that may be, obviously there is going to be a considerable alteration made in the distribution of these various functions, and the responsibility for making these alterations will not in some cases be with the landlord, as in the past—though it may be in other cases—it may be with the tenant. I am not a lawyer, but I am anxious to clear this up and to find out how at is going to affect the particular and peculiar interests of the landlord on the one hand and of the tenant on the other. For all I can see the actual effect of this may be to place certain burdens, unseen and unknown, upon one or other of these individuals, and it may work out in a totally different fashion, whichever of these Acts is really adopted. This leaves in the mind of those who are concerned with this problem very grave doubts, and, in these circumstances, I
hope the Lord Advocate will give some further explanation of this matter.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With the leave of the House I would say this: If the right hon. Gentleman will look at page 5 of the Bill he will find that in Clause 8, Sub-section (1), it is provided that the sale price can be computed without taking certain matters into account. Paragraph (iv) states:
(iv) the value of any tillages or manure, or of any improvements specified in paragraphs (20) to (27) of the First Schedule to the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1923.
The only paragraphs in the Schedule which require to be specified are paragraphs (20) to (27) of the First Schedule, but all these paragraphs in, the First Schedule relate to improvements to which the consent of the landlord, or notice to the landlord, is not required. If I just take one illustration I would say, for example, that in the case of the lining of the land the consent of the landlord is not required. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that there are several alterations being made in the Schedule in the sense that certain things are being taken from one Schedule and are being put into another Schedule, but so far as paragraphs (20) and (27) are concerned there is no alteration made at all. The matters which are dealt with in paragraphs (20) to (27) in the Schedule as it stands will be in precisely the same position when the Bill presently before the other House becomes law. The sole purpose of this Amendment is in case the numbering of a Schedule in the new Bill may be different, and accordingly we have got to identify the particular items with reference to the Schedule in the Bill as it at present stands. Beyond that there is no other alteration effected.

Major ELLIOT: I understand that when the Act is finally placed on the Statute Book a person desiring to interpret this will need to have a copy of the Finance Act of this year, a copy of the Smallholders Act which superseded the 1923 Act, and also a copy of the 1923 Act which has been superseded for all other purposes except for the reference in the Finance Act of this year? The references in the Finance Act of this year are to the Act of 1923.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is under a misapprehension. The effect of the Bill presently in another place will be that a new Schedule will be substituted for the Schedule in the existing 1923 Act, and as regards paragraphs (20) to (27) the position will remain precisely the same in the matter of the consent of the landlord and so on. We cannot tell whether there will be any alteration in the numbering at all as yet, and the reason why we cannot tell is that we do not know in what form the Bill may emerge from another place or what alteration may be made in this House. Accordingly, it is in order to avoid any confusion that may arise in the matter of numbering that we have had resort to this method of reference to the Schedule in the original Act. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it really makes no difference to the real position.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I would ask the Lord Advocate whether there is or is not any alteration in the matter of policy, and whether this is only a technical or drafting Amendment which is entirely dependent upon the position in this House and upon the Bill which is before another place?

The Lord ADVOCATE: That is exactly the position.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: I beg to move, in page 31, line 12, to leave out the words "(other than than dwelling houses)."
I would like to ask the Lord Advocate for some explanation of what the position of a cottage on a farm is going to be and also of the farmhouse. It is very difficult for an ordinary back-bencher to understand exactly the position we are in and to gather exactly what the cultivation value really means. The matter, of course, would be a very much simpler one if this Bill had not been rushed through by the Guillotine, because there have been various alterations made in other parts—in Clause 8—but all these alterations and Amendments were put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and were carried under the Guillotine. We had no explanation from the Front Bench opposite as to what the position really is, and, therefore, those of us who come from Scotland are left without any idea of
what the position is. I would like to have some statement from the Lord Advocate in the matter. Clause 31 reads:
'Agricultural buildings' means buildings (other than dwelling houses) included in any agricultural lands and heritages.
So far as I can understand that, it seems to me that in the cultivation value there is not to be taken into account the cottages on the farm or the farm houses. Therefore, I think I am perfectly justified in moving to leave out the words "(other than dwelling houses)" because surely a cottage does come within the definition of a dwelling house, and, therefore, if these words are left out of the Bill you are going to include cottages in the definition. In England I understand that cottages are included, but in Scotland they are left out. That seems to me to place Scotland at a great disadvantage. In Scotland the farmhouse is always taken as part of a farm and anybody who farms has very little use for a farm if these buildings are not included. If any part should be taken as cultivation value it should certainly be the farmhouse. I think it is rather strange that no Amendment has been moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remedy what I understand to be the present position.

Earl of DALKEITH: I beg to second the Amendment.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The purpose of the hon. Member in moving the Amendment is, I understand, to elicit a statement on the question whether agricultural cottages in Scotland are in the same position as in England, that is to say, whether they fall to be taken into account in estimating cultivation value for the purpose of this Bill. We intend that the position should be the same, but it is not necessary for us to make any adaptation upon the definition of agricultural buildings which appears in Clause 31. I will state the reason why. Each country has its own definition of agricultural buildings. The effect of the definition in each case is the same. Agricultural buildings in both countries excludes dwelling houses, but Clause 8 (2, b) brings in agricultural cottages for both countries for the purpose of estimating the cultivation value. Accordingly the hon. Member will see
that the matter is already covered by the Amendment which has been made to Clause 28, and it is not necessary to make special provision for Scotland in this matter.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: Will the Lord Advocate explain how it reads under Clause 28? This is very difficult indeed.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The definition in Clause 28 runs:
'Agricultural cottage' means, in relation to any laud, a house used as a dwelling-house of a person who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed.
The position is that the definition of agricultural buildings applies to agricultural cottages under Clause 28 of the Bill, and that definition is the same in both countries. If the definition had not been the same, it would have been necessary to make an adaptation, but the matter is already sufficiently covered.

Major ELLIOT: We are in a great difficulty here, because as the Lord Advocate has shown, we are dealing with several Amendments which have been made under the Guillotine without any discussion whatever. It shows that there really is some value in discussions. One of these Amendments made last night added the words, "or cottages." In the OFFICIAL REPORT, at the top of page 1359, will be seen the familiar paragraph:
Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given to that part of the Bill to be concluded-at half-past Seven of the Clock at this day's Sitting.
Amendment made, in page 6, line 29, after the word 'any,' insert the words 'agricultural cottages or.'—[The Solicitor-General.] 
We do not know what that means, because naturally the Solicitor-General did not have a chance of explaining it to us. Several more Amendments have been made in a similar way. On page 2562 of the Order Paper there appear three Amendments in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer dealing with Clause 23:
In page 28, line 32, leave out from 'farmhouse,' to 'and,' in line 36, and insert 'occupied in connection with such land as aforesaid and any agricultural cottage so
occupied which is on or contiguous to that land.
In page 28, line 42, after 'farmhouse,' insert 'or agricultural cottage.'
In page 29, line 2, at end, insert—
'Agricultural cottage' means, in relation to any land, "house used as a dwelling-house of a person who is employed in agricultural operations on that land in the service of the occupier thereof and is entitled, whether as tenant or otherwise, so to use the house only while so employed.
Clause 28 has been amended, but not printed again and we have no knowledge of what it looks like in its amended form without writing in the Amendments for ourselves. Here, however, we come to a point of principle. The Lord Advocate's contention, as I understand it, is that Clause 28 applies both to England and to Scotland, but I fail to follow that, and I would like the Lord Advocate to direct his attention to the beginning of Clause 28. He will find it says there:
In this part of the Act, except where the context otherwise requires, the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them.
Then follows the definition of "agricultural laud," but what is the context of this? The context of this is:
which, by reason of Sub-section (2) of Section 67 of the Local Government Act, 1929.
Section 67 of that Act is a purely English section. It deals with the total exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates. As is well known, there is no total exemption of agricultural land and buildings from rates in Scotland, because the proportion of one-eighth was left on the land. Therefore, it is clear that any court which turned up Clause 28 would say "The context makes it clear that this Clause 28 is, as it purports to be, an English Clause, and to deal with the Scottish Clause we must turn to the Scottish application Clause." I cannot see that any court, looking into Clause 28, would say, "We have to take the definitions as applying to Scotland which occur in Clause 28." On the contrary they would say, "They are clearly ruled out, because Clause 28 is an English Clause, and Clause 31 is the Clause which applies the thing to Scotland." I speak as a layman, and I find this most extraordinarily difficult to follow, but the broad general argument is that Clause 28 is an English Clause and 31 is a Scottish Clause, and
therefore any Amendment which has been made in Clause 28 will affect England and not Scotland and is in fact specifically excluded from application to Scotland. I beg the Lord Advocate to direct his attention to that point, and to reassure us on this side of the House.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: May I deal with the point as regards the English Clauses? I agree that it is a difficult matter to follow. Let us start at the beginning, with Clause 8 at line 29 on page 6. The Amendment which was made last night inserted after the word "any" the words "agricultural cottages or." Clause 28 is a general definition Clause for the whole purpose of Part III. There is no definition of minerals in the Scottish application Clause, because it means the same in Scotland as in England. What has been done in this case is only for the purpose of giving a special definition. Take the case of agricultural land. That is also defined in Clause 28, but there is also a special definition under paragraph (b) where agricultural land has a different meaning, but the definition in Clause 28 applies to England and Scotland. For agricultural cottages there is only one definition, and that is in Clause 28 which applies to England and Scotland. Therefore, the position is covered for Scotland and England as regards agricultural cottages.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I would like the Solicitor-General to tell us what the position is in regard to farmhouses. Is that included in the definition of agricultural land in Clause 28? I know there is a separate definition for Scotland in Clause 31 (b). Therefore it would appear that in England the value of the farmhouse would be made part of the agricultural value and taken from the land value. This does not appear to be the case in Scotland. The position seems to be quite obscure in regard to the farmhouse.

Mr. MACPHERSON: During the Committee stage, the Lord Advocate promised to give the Scottish side of the question the same consideration as was to be given to the English side by the Solicitor-General. As I understood the two speeches which I heard, it is now proposed to make the Scottish side exactly
the same as the English side. I am clear that under Clause 8 cottages are included, but the question arises now are dwelling-houses included. We never expected that the Report stage of this Clause would be taken at the same time as a Clause which affects the whole of Scotland in the same way as the other Clauses affecting the whole of England. I am satisfied now that the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General have made it clear to those of us who desire to understand it, that the position in Scotland is the same as in England.

Mr. SKELTON: I cannot say that I am in the slightest degree satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Solicitor-General. He says, with great force, that, where you have no special Scottish definition, you are to take the definition that you find in the general Clauses; but that leaves a very difficult question for the Courts. You have a definition of an agricultural cottage in Clause 28, but, when you come to the Scottish Clause, you find that agricultural buildings mean buildings other than dwelling-houses, and I think it would be a very reasonable view for a Court to take that no Act of Parliament could have a definition in which a cottage was regarded as something different from a dwelling-house. It seems to me to be obvious that the definition of an agricultural cottage in what I may roughly call the English Clauses cannot possibly apply to Scotland, because that would involve regarding a cottage as something different from a dwelling-house; and I think that any Court would say, with regard to the definition of the buildings to be taken into account in arriving at the cultivation value, that the definitions are separate in Scotland and in England, and that we have to construe the situation in Scotland from Clause 31.
Even, however, if I am wrong about that, the matter, in principle, remains most unsatisfactory as between the agricultural situations in the two countries. In England there has been the concession that, for the first time, the agricultural subject is regarded as including the agricultural cottage. That is to say, another element has been added to the factors which are to be taken into consideration in finding the cultivation value, and that is a real concession. But what is a concession in England is, if you apply
it to Scotland, not a concession, but exactly the opposite, because, on all previous occasions when it has been necessary to value an agricultural subject in Scotland, for all purposes with which valuation is concerned, the agricultural subject has included, not only the cottages, which now, ex concessu, are brought for the first time into the agricultural subject, but also the farmhouse, and that is now being taken away. Therefore, the situation remains exactly the same as far as Scotland is concerned, except that the Government think it worth while to make a special concession to England, but, in doing so, have removed one of the ordinary factors of cultivation in Scotland, namely, the element of the dwelling-house, which has always been regarded as part and parcel of the agricultural subject.
I want to bring before the Government once again the considerations that I urged during the Committee stage. In my judgment it is excessively foolish, unbusinesslike and unworkmanlike to go through the process of valuation of agricultural subjects, which, in the majority of cases, will not be followed by taxation—because it is only suburban agricultural subjects on which taxation will follow, and the vast number of farms are not within that range—when you have a perfectly ready method of finding the cultivation value, and one which is in accordance with the Scottish system of farming and with the Scottish view of what a farming unit is. You have it all ready for you in the Valuation Roll. At least 75 per cent. of the valuations are purely formal and yet, for the purpose of excluding the dwelling house from the cultivation value, you are going to throw aside and make no use of the existing valuation rolls whereas, if you include the farmhouse as part of the agricultural building, which it has been for all time and for all purposes, you need spend neither time not expense in discovering the value of all these subjects which you are not going to use.
It cuts much deeper than that. One of the most serious agricultural problems, which I do not think exists in England to anything like the same extent, is the led farm, which is cultivated in a combination of farms, where the farmhouse is not occupied by a farmer and goes derelict. If you do not include in your cultivation
value the farmhouse, you load the dice in favour of the led farm. If, in every farm where the farmhouse is occupied by a cultivating farmer, the value of the farmhouse comes into the cultivation and reduces the amount of tax in the suburban farms which will be taxed, you are doing something to load the dice against the led farm and in favour of every farm unit having a farmer of its own to look after it. It is a very faulty piece of agricultural economics to increase the tendency towards led farms instead of doing, perhaps, the only good thing you could do in this Bill, tipping the balance in favour of a farmer living in each farmhouse because, if a farmer lives in the farmhouse, the value of the farmhouse is taken into consideration in the cultivation value. It is folly, at a time when efforts are being made of every sort to increase the rural population, when you have the opportunity, instead of taking the right course of helping each farm to have its own farmer, to take the wrong course and to do all you can to move the increase of the led farm a great probability. That may be regarded as a fine drawn argument, but it is neither fine drawn nor anything but extremely practical. When you have a valuation ready for you whereby you can find the value automatically, you tear it up and insist on treating the farmhouse in a way it has never been treated before.

Sir R. HORNE: The charm of the Solicitor-General is always very difficult to resist, but I cannot help thinking that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) was much too easily persuaded to accept the view that the Scottish case was met by the words which have been inserted in the Bill. It is rather a deplorable thing for Scottish Members to have to hunt through a series of Clauses and Sub-sections which apply only to England to find bits that are to be selected to be applicable to Scotland. I lather revolt against it. I will, as far as I can and with such intelligence as I have, try to follow the Solicitor-General's explanation of these definitions. He tells us that under Clause 28, which is a general Clause, the agricultural cottage has been included, and that thereafter a definition of agricultural cottage is given in Clause 28, which has so much phraseology which does not apply to Scotland at all and can never
apply to our Scottish system, and yet you have to pick out bits of Clause 28 which may apply to Scotland. We find that:
'agricultural cottage' means, in relation to any land, a house used as a dwelling-house,
and when we come to the definition of "agricultural buildings" in the Clause applying to Scotland we find that:
'agricultural buildings' means buildings (other than dwelling-houses).
That is to say, that cottages are to be excluded from the category of dwelling houses and are not to come into computation when we consider the question of cultivation value. I see a very amused expression on the face of the Solicitor-General. If indeed he thinks that by a series of such references we can find the inclusion of cottages in cases of cultivation value in Scotland, I still protest, because I say that we ought to have something in the Bill which will quite fairly apply to the case of Scotland. The one consideration which is entirely left out is the fact that according to our immemorial custom in Scotland a farmhouse has been considered part of the tenement; and this Bill for the first time in Scottish history rules it out. Why is it to he ruled out? It is getting very late and vast questions affecting the Scottish system of land tenure, which is entirely different from that of England, will be left untouched, as we are to be guillotined out of all possibility of Debate. A national system which has grown up through centuries has been treated in the House during these discussions as though it did not matter at all.
I venture to make a protest on behalf of the whole of Scotland in regard to the way in which this Measure has been treated. Never in all the history of our country has any Scottish system, as distinct from England, been treated with so much contumely by any Government. It stands to the discredit of a Socialist administration that Scotland is wholly discredited, and we are put in at the end of an English Clause which docs not apply to our system of tenure, and it makes it almost impossible for anyone to understand to what it applies. It will lead to great confusion in regard to many matters in which the Scottish system is different from that of Eng-
land. I defy anyone who reads the Measure as it stands, guillotined as it is going to be in a quarter of an hour, in its application to Scotland, to make anything out of it. You never will be able to apply the processes of the Bill to Scottish law. I begin to feel that the Government never intend the Act to come into operation, because one thing is perfectly certain, namely, that when it comes to be applied it will be found that there is such a condition of confusion with regard to sections applying to Scotland that the Law Courts will not be able to interpret them.
The Solicitor-General has been very assiduous in his attention to the English Clauses and we believe that he has had a benevolent attitude towards us, but he is in complete ignorance of the Scottish system just as I am with regard to the English system. I do not profess to know the English system of land tenure. He has occasionally spoken with diffidence, but to-night he has spoken with a confidence which is completely unjustified. I do not know what has suddenly reinforced him upon the present occasion. I part from this Bill with a feeling that the whole interests of Scotland have been entirely neglected throughout the consideration of this Bill. We have a totally different system of land tenure, but what has been the amount of time we have had in which to discuss it. We were guillotined after a few hours on one day and to-night one single hour is to be sufficient to deal with the whole land system of Scotland. I make my protest. It is impossible to conduct any intelligent discussion in circumstances like these, and I leave this Bill with the conviction that you will have a revolt of Scottish opinion against it.

Sir HARRY HOPE: I desire to support the Amendment. The Solicitor-General has failed entirely to grasp the difference between the English and the Scottish system. In Scotland the farmhouse and the workmen's cottages are part of the subject let to the tenant. When he offers for the farm he offers for the dwelling-house for himself and for the cottages for the farm workers. When the cultivation value has to be returned by the owner it will be impossible for him to put a value on the farm on the assumption that there are no dwelling-houses upon it. I defy anyone,
looking at the matter from a practical point of view, to say what the value is without the cottages and the farmhouse. Both these items are necessary for the work of the farm. Surely it would be far more simple and lead to a more equitable result if the farmer's house, and the cottages, which are part of the subject, were included in the farm when valued for cultivation value. If the Government will make this concession they will facilitate the operation of the Bill in Scotland, but if they do not then they will be introducing nothing but absolute chaos and uncertainty.

Mr. SCOTT: I wish to put a difficulty which we on these benches have with regard to this matter. In paragraphs (b) and (c) of Clause 31 agricultural land is defined, and agricultural buildings are defined in the Amendment. In Clause 28 agricultural cottages are defined. It is quite clear that the definition of agricultural cottages refers to the workers' cottages and has no reference whatever to the farm house where the farmer lives. Paragraph (c) of Clause 31, which defines agricultural buildings, says that it means buildings other than dwelling-houses included in any agricultural land and heritages. Paragraph (b) also refers to agricultural lands and heritages. Therefore we are driven back to the definition in paragraph (b) of Clause 31 which says that agricultural land means land which is shown in the valuation roll as agricultural lands and heritages. If my recollection is correct as to what the valuation rolls show, there is a letter A put opposite farms, fields and also opposite farm houses, and they are all included in the definition of lands and heritages. If the hon. and learned Gentleman would clear up that point when he replies, we should be glad.

The LORD ADVOCATE: With the leave of the House I should like to say a few words in reply. I think a good deal of the confusion has arisen from not observing that the definition of agricultural buildings in the case of England is the same as in the case of Scotland. I want to make that clear because it gets rid of the difficulty. In Clause 31 (c) you have the definition of agricultural buildings, as far as Scotland is concerned. It says:
'Agricultural buildings' means buildings (other than dwelling-houses) included in any agricultural lands and heritages.
Just go back to Clause 28 for a moment. At the foot of page 28 you find this definition:
'Agricultural buildings' and 'cottage garden' have respectively the same meanings, as in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928.
When you go to the Act of 1928 you find that a dwelling house is excluded. Accordingly, the position as regards the exclusion of dwelling houses is precisely the same in Scotland as in England. Let me carry that a step further. I think the matter will be made quite plain. You go back now to Clause 8 of the Bill which deals with matters which have to be taken into account when you are computing cultivation value. Clause 8 states in language which could not be more explicit that when you are computing cultivation values you are including agricultural buildings and agricultural cottages. It is perfectly plain that for the purpose of the cultivation value of the land you include the agricultural cottage, but not the farmhouse which is the dwelling house. Accordingly, the position is that in England you exclude the dwelling house which is the farmhouse, and in Scotland you exclude the dwelling house which is the farmhouse, but in both countries, under Clause 8 you take into account the agricultural cottage. There is thus no difficulty at all, if one takes each Clause in turn and examines it. I agree it is extraordinarily difficult where you are dealing with legislation of this kind when you have to go from one part of the Bill to another and piece it all together, but I am certain that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir P. Home) will piece it together, he will find there is no dubiety, and the provisions as they stand are sufficient to bring in the agricultural cottage into the computation when you are reckoning cultivation value. On the other hand, it excludes farmhouses.

Sir R. HORNE: Why?

The LORD ADVOCATE: Because we are securing uniformity in this matter.

Sir R. HORNE: Och!

The LORD ADVOCATE: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to
say "Och." The right hon. Gentleman's idea of equality seems to be that Scotland should get a preference.

Sir R. HORNE: No, but that we should keep the system which we have always had.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of getting rid of a diatribe on what is happening to the Scottish system under this Bill, but that is not the point. We are dealing with a particular Amendment. We are dealing with the suggestion that preferential treatment has been given in this matter to England and I submit to the House that there is no foundation for that suggestion and that, if hon. Members take the trouble to piece the thing together, it is quite plain that in this matter Scotland and England are in precisely the same position.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: The answer to the Lord Advocate surely is that no court will ever be able to piece it together unless it has guidance from the speeches delivered in this House to-night. The Solicitor-General shakes his head but there are Members on these benches who are learned in Scottish law—as he is not—who will agree that they are no more clear on this matter now, than they were when the discussion began. I pointed out, when the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) was speaking, that there was a difference in definition, as between the Local Government Act, 1929, and the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928. I presume that there was a difference there, but, nevertheless, the fact is that what we want for this Clause 31, is the addition in plain language of a key, in order to tell everybody concerned what the Government really mean by this hotch-potch which is supposed to define their proposal. It is only a proof of what some of us said when the Guillotine Resolution was proposed. Whatever Measures the Guillotine may be applied to, the very last thing it ought to be applied to is a finance and taxing Measure.

Mr. BOOTHBY: If this Clause is incomprehensible to Scottish lawyers, as it is to all the Scottish lawyers here, with the possible exception of the Lord Advocate, how much more incomprehensible
must it be to every Scottish layman on this side of the House. This is the second occasion on which I have to rise two minutes before the fall of the Guillotine, and on which I have been deprived by the Time-table of the opportunity of offering any criticisms, but there is one point which I would put to the Lord Advocate in the short time available. According to his reasoning which is far beyond our intellectual compass on this side, and, I think, is beyond the intellectual processes of any hon. Members in this House except the Lord Advocate himself, everything will be included in the cultivation value except the dwelling-house. We say that, quite apart from the question of parity with England that vitiates the whole principle governing these matters in Scotland as it has existed for the last 100 years. In England you will at least have the valuation role with which to start off in valuing a farm. In Scotland you will have nothing to guide you. You will have to ascertain the valuation from a completely fresh standpoint.
As the Lord Advocate knows, the dwelling-house in Scotland as far as the valuation roll is concerned has always been taken as unum quid with the farm, and in any valuation roll in Scotland the dwelling-house hitherto has always been included. Therefore, the valuation roll will be of no value whatever in this respect. In this, as in many other matters connected with the Bill, the Lord Advocate has sacrificed the old customs of Scotland as they have gone on for many years. We have been precluded by the Guillotine from discussing at any length any of these vital matters affecting Scotland, as for example the application of the Bill to the feuing system, which was only dealt with cursorily in the Committee stage. We say that the Government have treated Scotland and Scottish Members very badly; that they have attacked a system of land tenure which hitherto has commanded the admiration of the world, and the only thing we have heard from the Government in regard to it has been an attack on the whole feuing system in Scotland by the Lord Advocate unsupported by any argument.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 219.

Division No. 375.]
AYES.
[9.48 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Edmunds, J. E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Buchanan, G.
Egan, W. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Burgess, F. G.
Foot, Isaac


Alpass, J. H.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Amnion, Charles George
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Cameron, A. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Arnott, John
Cape, Thomas
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Aske, Sir Robert
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Chater, Daniel
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Ayles, Walter
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Barnes, Alfred John
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Glassey, A. E.


Barr, James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gossling, A. G.


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Gould, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cove, William G.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Cowan, D. M
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gray, Milner


Benson, G.
Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Dallas, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Birkett, W. Norman
Dalton, Hugh
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Blindell, James
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Groves, Thomas E.


Bowen, J. W.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Day, Harry
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Bromfield, William
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)


Bromley, J.
Dukes, C.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Brooke, W.
Duncan, Charles
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Brothers, M.
Ede, James Chuter
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mansfield, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hair's, Percy A.
March, S.
Sherwood, G. H.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marcus, M.
Shield, George William


Haycock, A. W.
Markham, S. F.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Hayday, Arthur
Marley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hayes, John Henry
Marshall, Fred
Shinwell, E.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mathers, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Matters, L. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Maxton, James
Sinkinson, George


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Messer, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Middleton, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Herriotts, J.
Mills, J. E.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Hicks, Ernest George
Milner, Major J.
Smith, Ronnie (Penistone)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Montague, Frederick
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Hollins, A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hopkin, Daniel
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sorensen, R.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Mort, D. L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Isaacs, George
Muff, G.
Stephen, Campbell


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Strauss, G. R.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Murnin, Hugh
Sullivan, J.


Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Naylor, T. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Oldfield, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tillett, Ben


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Toole, Joseph


Kinley, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Tout, W. J.


Kirkwood, D.
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Lang, Gordon
Paling, Wilfrid
Vaughan, David


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palmer, E. T.
Viant, S. P.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Walkden, A. G.


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Perry, S. F.
Walker, J.


Law, A. (Rossendale)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, H. W.


Lawrence, Susan
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Lawris, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watkins, F. C.


Lawson, John James
Pole, Major D. G.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Potts, John S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Leach, W.
Price, M. P
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Quibell, D. J. K.
West, F. R.


Lees, J.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Westwood, Joseph


Leonard, W.
Raynes, W. R.
White, H. G.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lindley, Fred W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton, le-Spring)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Logan, David Gilbert
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Longbottom, A. W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Longden, F.
Ritson, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lunn, William
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Romeril, H. G.
Williams, T, (York, Don Valley)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


McElwee, A.
Rawson, Guy
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


McEntee, V. L.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


McKinlay, A.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


MacLaren, Andrew
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wise, E. F.


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sunders, W. S.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Sandham, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


McShane, John James
Sawyer, G. F.



Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Scott, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Scurr, John
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Charleton.


Manning, E. L.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Bird, Ernest Roy
Campbell, E. T.


Albery, Irving James
Boothby, R. J. G.
Carver, Major W. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Astor, Maj, Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Boyce, Leslie
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)


Astor, Viscountess
Bracken, B.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth., S.)


Atholl, Duchess of
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Camlet, Captain Victor A.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Brass, Captain Sir William
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Briscoe, Richard George
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Broadbent, Colonel J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Balniel, Lord
Buchan, John
Chapman, Sir S.


Beaumont, M. W.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Christie, J. A.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Clydesdale, Marquess of


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Butler, R. A.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel




Colfox, Major William Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Colman, N. C. D.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Colville, Major D. J.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ross, Ronald D.


Cooper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Salmon, Major I.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hurd, Percy A.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Savery, S. S.


Dalrymple-White. Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Haliam)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Smithers, Waldron


Dixey, A. C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Everard, W. Lindsay
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Ferguson, Sir John
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Fermoy, Lord
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Fielden, E. B.
Macquisten, F. A.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Thompson, Luke


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Sir F.


Frece, Sir Walter de
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Marjorlbanks, Edward
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Train, J.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Gllmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Gower, Sir Robert
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Wayland, Sir William A.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Muirhead, A. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Withers, Sir John James


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Sir George
Womersley, W. J.


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon. Barnstaple)
Wright, Brig-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsbotham, H.



Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, John R.
Sir Victor Warrender and Captain Wallace.


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James



Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)

Division No. 376.]
AYES.
[11.0p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mort, D. L.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Haycock, A. W.
Muff, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Muggeridge, H. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hayes, John Henry
Murnin, Hugh


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Naylor, T. E.


Angell, Sir Norman
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Arnott, John
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Aske, Sir Robert
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oldfield, J. R.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Herriotts, J.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Ayles, Walter
Hicks, Ernest George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Barnes, Alfred John
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palin, John Henry


Barr, James
Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, Wilfrid


Batey, Joseph
Hollins, A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hopkin, Daniel
Perry, S. F.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Isaacs, George
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Benson, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pole, Major D. G.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Potts, John S.


Bendfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Price, M. P


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Lelf (Camborne)
Pybus, Percy John


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Raynes, W. R.


Bromfield, William
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richards, R.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brothers, M.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Buchanan, G.
Lang, Gordon
Romeril, H. G.


Burgess, F. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rosbothanm D. S. T.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Rowson, Guy


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sanders, W. S.


Cameron, A. G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sandham, E.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sawyer, G. F.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Chater, Daniel
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Clarke, J. S.
Leach, W.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shield, George William


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lees, J.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Compton, Joseph
Leonard, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Cove, William G.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shinwell, E.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lindley, Fred W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Daggar, George
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Simmons, C. J.


Dallas, George
Logan, David Gilbert
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Dalton, Hugh
Longbottom, A. W.
Sinkinson, George


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Longden, F.
Sitch, Charles H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dukes, C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)


Duncan, Charles
Mac Donald. Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Egan, W. H.
McKinlay, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Foot, Isaac
MacLaren, Andrew
Sorensen, R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Gibbins, Joseph
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sullivan, J.


Gill, T. H.
Manning, E. L.
Sutton, J. E.


Gillett, George M.
Manslield, W.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Glassey, A. E.
March, S.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gossling, A. G.
Marcus, M.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plalstow)


Gould, F.
Markham, S. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Marley, J.
Tillett, Ben


Graham, Ht. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Marshall, Fred
Tinker, John Joseph


Gray, Milner
Mathers, George
Toole, Joseph


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Matters, L. W.
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James
Vaughan, David


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Messer, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Middleton, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mills, J. E.
Walker, J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Wallace, H. W.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, Frederick
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph
Wellock, Wilfred




Welsh James (Paisley)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.


Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


West, F. R.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Westwood, Joseph
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



White, H. G.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. T. Henderson.


Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)



Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Nail-Cain, A. R. N.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Ferguson, Sir John
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Atholl, Duchess of
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Perkins, W. R. D.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Balniel, Lord
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gower, Sir Robert
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Remer, John H.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Boyce, Leslie
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ross, Ronald D.


Bracken, B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rothschild, J. de


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Salmon, Major I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Buchan, John
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Scott, James


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sinclair, Col T. (Queen's U., Belfst)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Skelton, A. N.


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smithers, Waldron


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hurd, Percy A.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Chapman, Sir S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Hon. O (Westmorland)


Christie, J. A.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Steel-Maitland. Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Knox, Sir Alfred
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Moiton)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lane Fox. Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thompson, Luke


Colman, N. C. D.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Calville, Major D. J.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tltchfield, Major the Marquess of


Cooper, A. Duff
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Train, J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon George Clement


Cowan, D. M.
Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cranborne, Viscount
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Long, Major Hon. Eric
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lymington, Viscount
Ward, Lieut. -Col. Sir A. Lambert


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Dalkeith, Earl of
Macquisten, F. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, Edward
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Millar, J. D.
Womersley, W. J.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Elliot, Major Walter E.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir Frederick Thomson.

It being after Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the Souse of the 4th and 29th June, successively to put forthwith the Questions on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given.

Amendments made: In page 31, line 29, leave out from the word "accordingly" to the word "incumbrance" in line 31.

In line 33, after the word "charter," insert the words:
and any reference to a feu charter includes a reference to a feu disposition.

In page 32, line 6, leave out paragraph (i), and insert instead thereof the words:
(i) the Court of Session shall he substituted for the High Court provided that in the application of sub-section (2) of section eleven of this Act for any reference to the High Court there shall be substituted a reference to the judges of the Court of Session named for the purpose of hearing appeals under the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Acts, and an appeal shall lie to the House of Lords from any decision of the Court of Session or of the said judges under this Part of this Act;
(j) the sheriff court shall be substituted for the county court and an appeal shall lie from any decision of the sheriff court under this Part of this Act to the aforesaid judges in the case of a decision under section eleven of this Act and to the Court of Session in any other case.

In line 12, at the end, insert the words:
(j) for the purposes of section fifteen of this Act—

(i) for the references to lands, tenements, and hereditaments there shall be substituted references to lands and heritages;
(ii) where the annual value of any lands and heritages has been assessed on the basis that local rates in respect thereof are payable by the landlord, that value shall be reduced to such amount as would have been assessed if those rates had been payable by the occupier."

In line 37, at the end, insert the words:
or where no such value appears in the said valuation roll the gross annual value as determined by the Commissioners.

In page 34, line 31, at the end, insert the words:
and the said section shall not apply with respect to any instrument relating solely to shooting or fishing rights, or to a servitude.

In page 35, line 8, after the first word "court," insert the words:
or to the judges of that court referred to in paragraph (i) of this section.

In line 8, after the word "this," insert the words, "part of this."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Application to Crown lands.)

Amendment made: In page 30, line 35. leave out the words "and used."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.

Amendment made: In page 40, line 23, at the end, insert the words, "or any other enactment or award."—[Mr. Pethick-Lawrence.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 183.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister, who stated that he might have to make some alteration in the business as announced to-day, whether he has any such alteration to announce?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): As I stated to-day, I might have to vary the announcement I made earlier in the day regarding business next week. I therefore propose to put down on Monday, as the first Order, the Coal Mines Bill. This Bill will be an emergency Bill, and I propose that if the House desires two days—which it well may—to consider the Bill, to take the Second Reading on Monday, and then put it down again for its further stages on Tuesday as the first Order. I hope that the Bill will be in the Vote Office to-morrow afternoon, as early in the afternoon as possible. The notice has been handed in to-day of the presentation of the Bill to-morrow.

Mr. BATEY: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the Bill will contain?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Does this mean that the Private Business that was put down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for 7.30 on Monday will have to be postponed?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not the affair of the Government, but we will just go on and do as much as we can of the business on the Paper on Monday. With regard to what is contained in the Bill, my hon. Friend will find it to-morrow afternoon.

Mr. ANEURIN BEVAN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the fact that he gave a pledge some time ago that no legislation dealing with hours in the mining industry would be introduced unless there was agreement between the two sides of the industry, how he can announce that he is going to bring in legislation next week when the conference for to-morrow has not yet considered the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. Friend had better wait and see the position, but in any event, a full explanation will be made on Monday.

Mr. E. BROWN: Do I understand that we take the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill on Monday as the first Order, and then, if the Humber Bill, which
comes on at 7.30, goes on, as it may, for an hour or two, we shall go on after that again and after 11 o'clock?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the meantime, we will see what the chances are, but, in any case, the Second Reading of the Coal Bill have to be taken on Monday.

Viscount WOLMER: Will the Agricultural Marketing Bill be taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: It will appear on Monday as second Order, but we will just see how things go. There will be time on a succeeding day if it is not dealt with them.

Major ELLIOT: Will the Coal Bill apply to Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find the Bill in the Vote Office to-morrow afternoon.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.